Full text of "NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) 19750023961: Feasibility study of modern airships, phase 1. Volume 3: Historical overview (task 1)"

See other formats

kLiAi

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE

N75-32034

FEASIBILITY STUDY OF MODERN AIRSHIPS PHASE II, VOL. Ill
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW (TASK I)

GOODYEAR AEROSPACE CORP .
AKRON, OH

AUGUST 1975

^ 76 - 3 ^ 03 ^

NASA CR- 137692^3 )

FEASIBILITY STUDY OF MODERN AIRSHIPS

(PHASE I)

Volume III - Historical Overview (Task I)

Contract NAS2-8643

August 1975

Prepared for

Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, Akron, Ohio

Reproduced by

NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICE

US Department of Commerce
Springfield/ VA. 22151

FOREWORD

This final technical report was prepared for the Ames Research Center,
Moffett Field, Calif*, by Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, Akron, Ohio,
under NASA Contract NAS2-8643, "Feasibility Study of Modern Airships."
The technical monitor for the Ames Research Center was Dr. Mark D.
Ardema.

This report describes work covered during Phase I (9 December 1974 to
9 April 1975) and consists of four volumes:

Volume I - Summary and Mission Analysis (Tasks II and IV)
Volume II -Parametric Analysis (Task III)

Volume III -Historical Overview (Task I)

Volume IV - Appendices

The report was a group effort headed by Mr. Ralph R. Huston and was
submitted in May 1975. The contractor's report number isGER-16146.

-li-

OVERALL TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Title Page

VOLUME I - SUMMARY AND MISSION ANALYSIS
(TASKS II and IV)

SUMMARY 1

RECOMMENDED PHASE II MAV/MISSION

COMBINATIONS 2

MAV/Mission Combination 1 2

MAV/Mission Combination 3 3

MAV/Mission Combination 4 5

INTRODUCTION 6

MISSION ANALYSIS OVERVIEW 8

APPROACH FOR SELECTING POTENTIAL MISSIONS . 8

PRESENT CONVENTIONAL MISSIONS 10

Passenger and Cargo 10

Present Conventional Passenger Missions and

Competitive Modes 12

Present Scheduled Airline Missions 16

Present and Projected Passenger System

Capabilities and Limitations 18

Conventional Passenger MAV Mission Potential . . 23

Present Conventional Cargo Missions and

Competing Forms 27

Evaluation of Present Cargo Missions to Determine
Potentially Competitive Conventional Missions

for MAV's 29

Intermodal Comparisons # . 31

Intermodal Comparisons in Price

Competitive Market 39

Present Scheduled Air Cargo System

Capabilities and Limitations 45

Conventional Cargo MAV Mission Potential .... 45

-iii-

Section Title Pa s e

PRESENT UNIQUE TRANSPORTATION AND

SERVICE MISSIONS 50

Present Unscheduled/General Aviation

Passenger Missions 50

General Aircraft Fleet Composition and Use (1971) . . 52

Fleet Composition 52

Present Passenger Equipment Capabilities

and Limitations 56

Unscheduled Passenger Mission Potential 58

Commercial 59

Institutional Passenger 59

Present Unscheduled/General Aviation

Cargo Missions 60

Present Unscheduled Cargo System

Capabilities and Limitations 60

Unscheduled General Cargo MAV

Mission Potential 61

Heavy Lift Large Indivisible Load

MAV Mission Potential 61

Commercial (Heavy Lift) 62

Institutional (Heavy Lift) 63

Agricultural Transportation MAV

Mission Potential 63

Platform/Service Mission Potential 65

Commercial (Platform/Service) 66

Institutional (Platform/Service) 67

Resources from Remote Regions - MAV

Mission Potential 69

Military MAV Mission Potential 71

MAV SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND OPERATIONAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL MISSIONS 74

General 74

Scheduled and Unscheduled Civil Passenger and

General Cargo Transportation Missions 86

Unique Missions 86

Military Missions 87

EVALUATION OF MAV’s FOR POTENTIAL MISSIONS AND
SELECTED MISSION PECULIAR FIGURES OF MERIT . . 89

General 89

Potential Conventional Passenger and

Cargo Missions 97

Potential Unique Missions and Selected

Mission Peculiar Figures of Merit 98

Potential Military Missions and Selected Military

Mission Peculiar Figures of Merit 101

-iv-

Section

Title

Page

POTENTIAL MISSIONS BY VEHICLE SIZES AND TYPES . 103

General 103

Civil Missions 103

Military Missions 107

EVALUATION AND SELECTION FACTORS 109

Missions 109

Parametric Analysis 109

Selected Combinations 110

MAV/Mission Combination 1 Ill

MAV/Mission Combination 2 115

MAV/Mission Combination 3 116

MAV/Mission Combination 4 120

PHASE II RECOMMENDATIONS 123

REFERENCES 123

VOLUME II - PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS
(TASK III)

SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 2

BACKGROUND 2

OBJECTIVES 4

SCOPE 4

GENERAL APPROACH 5

METHODS OF ANALYSIS 6

PARAMETRIC STUDY OVERVIEW 10

CONVENTIONAL AIRSHIPS 11

Design Description (Conventional Rigid) 11

Pressurized Metalclad 16

CONVENTIONAL AIRSHIP AERODYNAMICS ANALYSIS . . 20

PROPULSION ANALYSIS (PERFORMANCE) 21

- v-

Section Title Page

PROPULSION SYSTEM WEIGHTS ANALYSIS 22

STRUCTURAL WEIGHTS ANALYSIS 22

CONVENTIONAL AIRSHIP PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS ... 28

Introduction z 8

Fineness Ratio Tradeoff Study 31

Metalclads, 1 /d Optimization Study 34

Conventional Airships Heaviness Tradeoff Studies

Based on UL*Vc/EW 40

Conventional Airship Heaviness Optimization Study
Based on Payload Ton-Mile per Hour as a

Function of Range 42

Conventional Airship Heaviness Tradeoff

Study Results 56

Advanced Ellipsoidal Airship Concepts 66

PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF HYBRID VEHICLES .... 68

Overview 68

Preliminary Configuration Evaluation 69

Modified Delta Planform Hybrid (Selection

Rationale and Configuration Description) 71

Structural Description 74

Delta Planform Hybrid Aerodynamics Analysis .... 78

GASP Aerodynamics Estimating Procedures 79

Propulsion 80

Structural Analysis and Weights Analysis 80

Hybrid Parametric Analysis 89

Hybrid Parametric Performance Results 94

Lifting Body Hybrid/Ellipsoidal Airship

Productivity Comparison 102

HEAVY LIFT HYBRID VEHICLE CONCEPT 107

Heavy Lift Performance versus Gross Weight:

Size Limitations and Scale Effects Ill

Alternate Figure of Merit for Conventional Airships . . 114

Fuel Efficiency Considerations 115

Endurance Capability 118

Range Capability 119

Comparison with Historical Results 119

PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . 123

Conventional Airship/Lifting Body Hybrid 124

Section Title Page

LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT STUDY 125

REFERENCES 129

VOLUME III - HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
(TASK I)

SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 2

PARAMETERIZATION OF DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS . 8

Rigid Airships 8

Non-rigid Airships ZZ

Semi-rigid Airships 32

Analysis of Data (Rigid, Non-rigid, Semi-rigid) ... 35

HISTORICAL MARKETS, MISSION COSTS, AND

OPERATING PROCEDURES 45

General 45

Operations and Economics 46

Manufacturing 63

Prior Goodyear Economic Studies (1944 $) 72

American Military Experiece (1916 to 1961) .... 72

Airship Safety 86

CRITICAL DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL

CHARACTERISTICS 94

General 94

Maximum Bending Moment Criteria 104

Operational Aspects of Airships 109

STATE OF THE ART 116

Rigid Airships (Materials) 116

Material Life Characteristics 124

Non-rigid Airships (Materials) 125

Rigids (Economically) 126

Operational Aspects of Conventional MAV's .... 129

Recent LTA/HTA Vehicles and Concepts 134

REFERENCES 143

- vii-

VOLUME IV - APPENDICES

Appendix Title Page

A (1) General Dimensions and Characteristics of French

Dirigibles A-l

(2) Characteristics of Italian Semi- rigid Airships . . . A-l

B Non-rigid Airships Manufactured by Goodyear B-l

C (1) Properties of 7050 Aluminum Alloy C-l

(2) Macon Gas Cell Data C-l

(3) Additional Chronological History of German

Airship Events C-l

D Derivation of Conventional Ellipsoidal Airship Structural

Weight Estimating Relationships • . D- 1

E Aerodynamics Analysis E-^l

F Propulsion and Take Off Analysis F-l

G Sandwich Monocoque Rigid Airship G*1

H Design Options H- 1

I Configuration Screening Exercise 1*^1

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (VOLUME III ONLY)

Figure Title Page

1 Typical Rigid Airship 4

2 Typical Non- rigid (Pressure) Airship 6

3 Typical Semi-rigid Airship 8

4 Characteristics of German Zeppelin and Schutte-Lanz

Rigid Airships 17

5 Summary of Significant Rigid Airship History 23

6 Useful Lift-to-Gross Lift Ratio vs Airship Volume (Past

Rigid Airship Configurations) 35

7 Empty Weight-to-Gas Volume Ratio as a Function of Gas

Volume (Past Rigid Airship Configurations) 38

8 Useful Lift-to-Gross Lift Ratio versus Airship Volume

(Past Non-rigid and Semi-rigid Configurations) 39

9 Comparison of Past Rigid, Non-rigid, and Semi-rigid Air-
ship Configurations 40

10 Altitude versus Useful Lift 42

11 Rigid Structural Weight versus Airship Air Volume ... 43

12 Payload Ton-Miles per Hour versus Gross Weight (Rigids) 44

13 Payload Ton-Mile s/(Hour) (Empty Weight) versus Gross

Weight (Rigids) 45

14 Utilization Rate as a Function of Stage Length for German

Commercial Service (1910 to 1937) 51

15 Average Block Velocity Maximum Velocity Ratio .... 52

16 Fare Schedule for Graf Zeppelin and Hindenburg (1936$) * 56

17 Direct Construction Man-Hours for Past Rigid Airships

(First Unit of New Design) 68

18 Manufacturing Costs for Non-rigid Airships (Prototype). . 71

-ix-

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (VOLUME III) (CONTINUED)

Figure Title Page

19 Manufacturing Costs for Non- rigid Airships (Production). . 71

20 1944 Operating Cost Comparison for Various

Forms of Air Transport 78

21 Safety Statistics for Airships and Airplanes 93

22 General Distribution of Forces on Airship 96

23 Investigation of Gust Forces by Water Model Tests .... 100

24 Structural Model Tests 102

25 Comparison of Theoretical Calculations with Test Results. . 103

26 Estimated Variation of Peak Bending Moment Coefficient

with Fineness Ratio, C = M/qV 108

2 7 Comparative Aerodynamic Bending Strength of

Different Airships 110

28 Preliminary Estimate of Price versus Empty Weight for

Conventional Rigid Airships 128

29 Automatic Flight Control System Schematic 131

30 Goodyear Mayflower Stern Propulsion Demonstration . . . 140

-x-

LIST OF TABLES (VOLUME III ONLY)

Table Title Page

1 Characteristics of German Zeppelin Rigid Airships LZ-I

Through LZ-1Z1 (References 1 and Z) 9

Z German Schutte-Lanz Airships (Rigid) 15

3 Characteristics of Rigid Airships (References 3, 4, and 5) . 19

4 Detailed Weights for Notable Rigid Airships (Reference 6) . ZO

5 German Non-rigid Airships (Reference 1) 24

6 American Non-rigid Airship Characteristics Z5

7 ZMC-Z Characteristics (Reference 7) Z7

8 Comparison of Akron (ZRS-4) and Proposed

MC-7Z Metalclad 28

9 Structural Weight (Pounds) of Akron and MC-74

(Reference 9) 29

10 Principal Characteristics and Approximate Weights of

Ultimate Airship (1939) by Burgess (Reference 10) 31

11 Detailed Weights for ZPG-3W With and Without

Military Equipment (Reference 13) 33

12 Characteristics of German Semi-rigid Airships

(Reference 1) 34

13 Characteristics of RS-1, Roma, and Norge Semi-rigid

Airships (Reference 3) 36

14 Selected World War I German Bombing Raids 47

15 Luftschiffbau Zeppelin Commercial Service (1910 to 1937). . 49

16 Data Relative to Graf Zeppelin Transoceanic Flights and

Passenger Load Factors 54

17 Summary of Hindenburg's 1936 North Atlantic Service

(Westward Crossings ) 58

-xi-

LIST OF TABLES (VOLUME III ONLY )( CONTINUED)

Table

Title

Page

Summary of Hindenburg's 1936 North Atlantic Service
(Eastward Crossings)

Zeppelin Commercial Passenger Service Operating Costs .

Detailed Breakdown of Actual Akron and Macon Project
Hours and Dollars (As of Date Incurred).

Summary of Rigid Airship Manufacturing Data

Fabrication Costs for Non-rigid Airships . .

Engineering Hours Breakdown

Cost of Six 10, 000, 000 - Cu Ft Airships (1944

Materials and Material Strengths (Rigids)

117

Technical Details of Proposed (and Existing) Willlenkamper
Non-rigid Airships

142

-Xll-

FEASIBILITY STUDY OF MODERN AIRSHIPS

VOLUME III - HISTORICAL OVERVIEW (TASK I)
Gerald L. Faurote*

Goodyear Aerospace Corporation

SUMMARY

The history of lighter-than-air (LTA) vehicles is reviewed in terms of
providing a background for the mission analysis and parametric analysis tasks
(see Volumes I and II, respectively), which were performed as part of the
Goodyear Aerospace Corporation (GAC) feasibility study of modern airships.
In addition, data from past airships and airship operations are presented that
will be of interest in Phase II.

The following areas are detailed relative to past vehicles and operations:

1. Parameterization of design characteristics

2. Historical markets, missions, costs, and operating procedures

3. Indices of efficiency so that comparisons can be made from
the parametric analysis of Volume II

4. Identification of critical design and operational characteristics

5. Definition of the 1930 state of the art, both technically and
economically. A 1974 state of the art is defined from both a
technical and an economic standpoint.

As a final portion of the historical overview, the more prominent concepts
emerging in the current resurgent interest in LTA are briefly reviewed.

^Development engineer, Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, Akron, Ohio ,

- 1 -

INTRODUCTION

The essentials of free ballooning - including the gas-tight bag, the valve,
the net, and the basket that carried the pilots - were all developed in Europe
in the 18th century. Benjamin Franklin saw One of these earliest flights
and wrote home to friends in America: ''Among the pleasantries that conver-

sation produces on this subject, some suppose flying to be now invented, and
that since men may be supported in the air, nothing is wanted but some light
handy instrument to give and direct motion. "

Inventors worked for a century to verify Franklin’s prophecy. In 1852,
Henri Giffard, a French inventor, built the first power-driven balloon, a 45-
ft-long dirigible*, which derived its motive power from a three -horsepower
steam engine. The first rigid airship was constructed in 1898 by an Austrian
named Schwartz. He used a framework consisting of 12 rings and 16 longi-
tudinal aluminum girders and an outer covering of sheet aluminum.

At the turn of the century, Count Zeppelin completed and flew his first
craft and thus laid the foundations for practicable commercial and military
operations. Between 1900 and 1918, the German Zeppelin Company built more
than 100 rigid airships. Ultimately, the Zeppelin Company built and operated
two of the world's most notable airships, the Graf Zeppelin and the Hinden-
burg, the latter being the largest airship ever built.

Other notable airship constructors from 1900 to 1918 were the German
Schutte-Lanz Company, which built 22 rigid airships from 1911 to 1918, and
the German Luft-Fahrying -Gesellschaft Company, which built 27-Parseval-
type non-rigid airships from 1906 to 1918. The Prussian Army Airship Works,

also a German concern, manufactured about 10 semi-rigid airships, the ma-
jority of them for the Prussian Army.

A lighte r-than-air aircraft, having its own motive power, that can be steered in
any desired direction by its crew. Dirigible: of aircraft or airborne devices
that can be directed or steered; dirigible balloon; a balloon, especially a non-
spherical balloon, that can be steered. No specific structural type is implicit
in the term "dirigible" in the U.S. Air Force Dictionary (1956)

- 2 .

The British became interested in rigid airships about 1910 and built a
small ship, the Mayfly* After 1914, the British also became highly active in
building non-rigid airships. The British R-100 and R-101 attest to their con-
tinued interest in the rigid design. Both France and Italy were active in build-
ing semi-rigid airships, the Roma and Norge being notable Italian configura-
tions .

The American airship industry started in 1911, with Goodyear and Good-
rich the principal early suppliers. During World War I, Goodyear became
the major supplier and ultimately built and delivered more than 1000 balloons
and close to 100 non-rigid airships for the United States, England, and France.
Construction activities continued at Goodyear after the war, including build-
ing America's first semi-rigid ship, the RS-1.

In 1924, the Inter-Allied Air Commission forbade further German Zep-
pelin Company operations. With dismantling the huge zeppelin hangars on
Lake Constance projected, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company agreed
with Luftschiffbau -Zeppelin to form a new company, Goodyear Zeppelin Corp-
oration, in which L-Z would have a one -third interest and GT&R two -thirds
interest and in which the Zeppelin patents could be used. Dr. Karl Arnstein,
chief engineer of Euftschiffbau-Zeppelin - along with 12 of his technical ex-
perts - came to Goodyear to assume the position of Vice-President of
Engineering. With the combined expertise of the German Zeppelin Company
and the American airship industry now available, the Goodyear Zeppelin
Company a few years later designed and built the rigid airships Akron and
Macon for the U. S. Navy - the largest airships built to that date.

The Goodyear Zeppelin Company, later renamed Goodyear Aircraft
Company and known today as Goodyear Aerospace Corporation, continued to
build non-rigid airships for military purposes and between 1941 and 1961 de-
livered nearly 220 units to the Navy.* In 1961, the last ZPG-3W airship - the

largest non-rigid ever built - was delivered to the U. S. Navy. Goodyear
Aerospace continues to build advertising airships today for its parent organi-
zation, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company.

-------- _

Only supplier of airships to the Navy since 1930.

3 -

The conventional airship is a powered, streamlined body-of-revolution,
air-displacement vehicle that derives its buoyancy from the difference in weight
of the inflation gas within its hull or envelope and the weight of the ambient
atmosphere thus displaced. Historically, two distinct structural types of air-
ships have given rise to a definition of dirigibles based on these structural
differences: (1) rigid (unpressurized) airships and (Z) non-rigid (pressurized)

airships. A third type, the semi-rigid, basically is a blend of these two.

The rigid type (see Figure 1) - such as the Akron, Macon, and Hinden-
burg - were built of aluminum bulkhead rings, aluminum transverse girders,
and a network of pretensioned diagonal shear wires. An outer fabric (doped

Figure 1 - Typical Rigid Airship

- 4 -

cotton cloth) provided a wind and weather cover. The lifting gas was contained
in several independent gas-tight cells, which were supported between bulkhead
ring nettings. The gas cells were partially filled at sea level, with pressure
height being the altitude at which expansion of the gas completely filled the
cells. Climb beyond pressure height, which normally was not undertaken,
necessarily required valving and irrevocable loss of the lifting gas to prevent
overpressuring and rupturing the cells. Generally, poppet valves with spring
settings for overpressure protection provided automatic pressure valving at
the pressure height with a manual capability also available. Both hydrogen
and helium have been used as lifting gases, with the latter much preferred be-
cause of its inert character. Heavy takeoffs* were never accomplished with
rigid airships .

The rigid airships manufactured by the German Schutte-Lanz Company
used wood exclusively for structural members. During 1911 to 1917 and even
prior to this, the German Zeppelin Company used aluminum in its rigid air-
ships. The first rigid also was of an aluminum construction. It is not exactly
clear why the Schutte-Lanz Company chose wood, but at the time of the World
War I armistice the company was preparing to use aluminum in future con-
struction.

The non-rigid (pressure) airship (see Figure 2) consists of a hull or en-
velope typically of a coated fabric filled with a lifting gas and pressured slightly
above ambient. Earlier non-rigid envelopes were coated cotton fabric while
the more recent configurations such as the ZPG-3W used a neoprene -coated
dacron. Dacron has a higher strength-to-weight ratio than cotton.

In the non-rigid, several ballonets - or air compartments - are curtained
off within the envelope. They normally are located forward, aft, and amid
ship. The maximum ballonet capacity is a function of the design pressure
height. The envelope is pressurized by ducting air for the ballonets from
the propwash or pumping with electric blowers through an air distribution
system to the ballonets. Dampers, air lines, and exhaust valves at the

Heavy takeoff denotes aerodynamic lift in addition to aerostatic lift required
to accomplish takeoff.

- 5 -

CAR PASSENGER
COMPARTMENT

ENGINE

Figure Z - Typical Non-rigid (Pressure ) Air ship

ballonets permit the envelope pressure to be controlled, and relative fullness
of the fore and aft ballonets permit trimming in pitch. As the ship ascends, the
lifting gas is expanded without gas being lost by deflation of the ballonets.
Pressure height is the altitude at which the ballonets are completely deflated,
the envelope at that point being 100 percent full of lifting gas. Further ascent
can occur only with valving of the lifting gas. It is possible for anairship tobe
flown so high, with consequent valving of the lifting gas, that upon descent the
ballonets are pumped full (of air) before the ground has been reached. At this
point, the airship can descend with envelope pressurization only by pumping
air directly into the lifting gas provided an emergency access route of air to
the lifting gas is available. Both hydrogen and helium have been used as a
lifting gas.

Rate of ascent with a pressure airship may be limited by engine power if
the ship is "heavy” but is structurally limited by the ballonet valves 1 capacity
to exhaust air. Conversely, rate of descent is limited by the air system's
capacity to pump air into the ballonets as the helium contracts with increasing
ambient pressure.

- 6 -

While the car structure and engine nacelles on a rigid airship are extended
from convenient bulkhead rings and longitudinal girders, the car structure
weight on a non-rigid is distributed to the fabric envelope by catenary systems.
Usually, two identical internal catenary curtains, either side of the centerline
on the top of the envelope, tie to the upper envelope along two fore and aft Y
joints. Vertical tension cables from the roof of the car carry the weight to
fitting points on the curtains. The curtains spread the load to the upper en-
velope, deforming it slightly "out-of-round" at the Y intersection. A catenary
system around the car -lower envelope intersection distributes pitching or
yawing loads to the envelope. Fins on a non-rigid are cable -braced to finger
patches tangent to the cable -envelope intersections. Powerplant installations
on a non-rigid always have been extensions from the hard car structure.

Pressurized metalclad airships have been considered throughout the
history of L.TA. The metalclad, as the name suggests, uses a thin metal
covering (historically, only aluminum was ever seriously considered)
rather than the conventional fabric covering.

The semi-rigid airship (see Figure 3) generally differed from the non-
rigid by using a nose -to -tail rigid keel rather than the catenary curtains for
distributing the car weight into the fabric envelope. It was still a pressure
airship and required slight pressurization to permit resistance of hull bend-
ing moments without envelope wrinkling. Its cross-sectional shape tended
more to a pear shape because the entire car weight was applied to the bottom
of the envelope.

The following subsections of the historical overview relate to:

1. Parameterization of design characteristics for both
conventional and unconventional LTA vehicles of
interest to the current study.

2. Results of historical markets and missions, costs
and operating procedures, and research relative to
past LTA activities.

- 7 -

Pressure semi-rigid

Figure 3 - Typical Semi-rigid Airship

3. Parameterization of the data presented in Item 1,
above, into the indices of efficiency of interest to the
current study.

4. Identification of critical design and operational charac-
teristics of past LTA vehicles.

5. Definition of 1930 state of the art (SOA), technically and
economically, relative to LTA vehicles.

6. Definition of 1974 SOA, technically and economically,
relative to LTA vehicles.

PARAMETERIZATION OF DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS

Rigid Airships
Ge rman

Tables 1 and 2 give the more important characteristics of all German air-
ships built up to and including 192 0, except for a few built prior to 1910 that
fall under miscellaneous types. These airships are omitted because of their

— 8 —

TABLE 1 - CHARACTERISTICS OF GERMAN ZEPPELIN RIGID AIRSHIPS
LZ-1 THROUGH LZ-121 (REFERENCES 1 AND 2)

^asndo] ia>|

* »tUi

< AM MUUQaUMMfefeOh O X X X X X *-<

• M3UOH-ajn

m in

-H -» l<-» m © ^* <n rvi r» as m <n m mm

n- CN OO IN M m m m m <n ^ m -J- -a

aDlAjag
;o 3 no p»3*Td

Early 1901
Jan 17, 1906

Autumn 1913
Aug 5, 1908
Apr 25. 1910

Sep 19, 1910
Jun 28, 1910

May 16. 1911

Aug 1, 1919
Jun 28, 1912

Autumn 1915

Summer 1914

Summer 1916
Sept 9, 1913
Mar 19, 1913
Autumn 1916

Autumn 1916
Oct 17, 1913

8 ,

34*11*
31JTJ - 33*a

Jul 2, 1900

Nov 30, 1905
Oct 9, 1906

Jun 20, 1908
May 26. 1906
Aug 25, 1909

Jun 19, 1910
Mar 30, 1911
Oct 2, 1911

Jun 26, 1911
Feb 19, 1912
Apr 25, 1912

Jul 30, 1912
Oct 7, 1912
Jan 16, 1913
Mar 19, 1913

May 3, 1913

Sep 9, 1913

57 * 1 0^ watt

’H*<TW 'P** d S

o in mm to o o o in n in oo o O o >j # o f~- O

oo si«at-.<**coaocr'*i , nmoor'.r*i^r»- f— r-s n as ^ <T I~"

— i «n in r\ m im m cn mm m si si 'J II

puw *on

- ta»n® doj d

• * * 4i ' O

6 ts e -o

0 M 3 m *

<»<«;=£ . .... . . .

IN ts) 00

J J IN JC

-a

' d ‘ H 1»301

NT O O

, o OO © Q O O r~. o O O OO O O m m n n n m o ^

CT> I'- p- O O O O m m sO -43 <N (N IN IN fsl (Tv O' O' O' O' O' vO

ini MMtNiN<NrN(N m m -i si »i si <r 'J <T O ■o<r '0 X

HjmsB

L <j -43

- O O O O ifl ^ -i o O O OO O O in m m in n m m ^

si in m o O O O — ■ i i IN IN si si -I sT -J 'OvO'O'O -45 sO s© ^

f-l CO CC — • m m m —

•»ut8u3

Daimler

Da imler
Daimler

Daimler

Da imler

Daimler
2 Daitnle
1 Maybch
Daimler

Daimler

Maybach

0 lbm = 4

cm n (\ in (n n in <n n c“> n rO n c^i m r*“> po rn *-8

■on

ti*0 a»no^

(N IN ININ IN CN m ojm CN IN IN ININ IN IN CN CN CN IN <N <N f-l E

quaojaj
I«30X 1 nj BBf|

22.1

20.5

20.5
27.8
27.8

27.8

23.0

30.7

30.9
30.9

30.5
30.9

30.5

35.2

33.3

33.0

37.5

B y 10‘

(*qi

™» 09i*,0)
p*oq injBtn

About

6,000

About

10,000

L0, 000
About
8,800
About
19,300
19,300

About

13,200

About

13,600

13.200

13,600

18.900

15.500

15.900

About

15.900

About

16.500

29 . 200

t = 3 . 04

*»<n

'P»ot t*3ox

27,200

27.200

29.200

29.200
36,000

36 , 000

36.000

38.200

46.500

96.500

40.200
42,700

42.700

44.700

42.700

44 . 700

53.700
46,600
46,600
46,600

50.000

69 . 500

)te: 1.0 £

•J* 'jaqame-Kj

fsl ^ (Mr -4 cm n h'N ^ 0 > O'J' ^ rs ps n n nJ

oo oo so ® co in <N<NcNininminin*n n m co ao oo oo oo <x _»

mm mm m <r NT<r <t -I >1 >J >1 NT -4 -I -J 'J -J -'J sj in ^

OO O'© -43 vO v£> .cm sD >C m O' O' >0 O' 1000 '£>'C> 0''0 00 3

m in Msisi-a sisin-uoAe^mm® m oo — a> vi co m oc

^<T <r N sr <J «? ^TNT si si >J<T Vt sj in sj Sj sj sj V'

II '

rs. so sO f~s r^- r^-oo oo CO r~.<jo n- oo CO so 'O cO ^ oo o

n 400,000

400 . 000

h 400,000

430.000

430.000
i 530,000

530.000

i 530,000

562.000

680.000
600,000

592.000

628.000

628,000

658.000

628.000

658.000

790.000

686.000
686,000
686,000

735.000

9580.00

dex (see to]

M ^ M M M U C

a! « « OC 00 ? i' s K

S 1 b a ^ ^ ^ $ ”> Z $ z z $ 3

Z Z IjL ' A A ^ i & 1 3 3 3 2 *

i^n

Z-l

2-II

Deutsch

land

Z-II

2*11

Schwa be
Viktorl
alulae

Z-III

Hansa

L-i

Z-I

Z-IV

Sachsen

L-2

;fers to

Xjo3«7H

Rebuilt

Control Surfaces
Rebuilt

Rebui 15

Replaced LZ-7
Rebuilt

Replaced 2-1
(LZ-3)

Length Increased

tatua. Figure 4 ri

l .
m /■

P»MS

Suipling

ccccccac c cccccppgi^o

X -C-C-C-C-C-S^^Em

5xaxxxxx x xx.xxxxxOO.n-

u u u u yu u o o u o

m M rn m! m m’Cwwwh'CwM "C UU

<v 4i v it v « it -a-a -o t> v v x-o tj ,,3 ?7'2 7. -

N H N M H M H itit it V *i W * tl W itwwwvwwrvil

C 0 c C a C 0 >*4 nH

22 2222 2£fc£££££il £

JsqtonN

tUTPTing

** * * *

— « rs* r^i fn <T ^

33 3333 3 33 3 3 33. 3 3 3 3333333**

ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF POOR QUALITY!

aaiAia;

'T* 10— ■ ic — *o «Ti .— — i .~« lAin

«■• — o — 5— -* <r cr cj> _ —

— <y — ■ rj — »• cr — -t — &&

JOTAJi

jo jr\Q paov] c

- N D n M ^ * 2 £ ' ^ CT V wf>' £ ^ *® * * ®

5 ' X ^ 2 “ -? o 5 A V. > *' CL. >. U >. u .j c C o

- «* * * i- £ 5 5- 2* J54 3

JM^Hd

3gj|j - a 3 B(1

-* x ~ « £ ~ % . - S ^ ^ Sn £

= ~ > £ •£ > - ^ aae. u >> >VCCbi0fa u

3 *0 0 0 0 4 (0 <0 nj 4,0. a

~ ~ *• U,T:nC <WO!KKZ£a«-)>-»JCUi< <

‘H‘d*W ‘paa^s

^ ® ”: "' : ® 2 O 00 *£ O O «V1 fsl INN IV| <N rsl N NO 1 “ O

5 533 ; i s : : p j; s ;j ; 5 ! s ss s

ItTaaqrw
pug *on
- «j»nadoJ d

§4, £ ee § EB 1 B E N BN *

Js -5 -C 3 30*-33“*33C-O3C C

<<o < H ^ nor-® <l> tj

Nl® NJ^lro 2 03 0 oo

3 33 - 1 3 3 J 3 J J 3

-» -j .— r-\ <j <t-j -j- <r <r <j <f <r n

*d ’ H 1*302

s SSS S £ 3 8 S S 38 8 88 2 8 8 S S3 s

' T -T<r<r l''' ^ v£) vC vO ’O'O'O'OsO'OsOiOvDnDO® 2

' d ‘ K •»uj8u a

S 2SI£ 1C i? 2 2 2 2 22 2 22 2 2 22 °2 2

ad kx
*bujSu3

Maybach

•auj8u3

ro mr^m r*s r*i m m co n r^v fn r^» rn ro m

•on

•J*D J8«0£

(NNNNNNNINM CNtMrMNrj<Mc4tM<N<MNC<l rN

3U83J8J

1*301 lojasn

O O « O «N Cl ^ ^ ^ n

S 5 S ^ £ <3 £ ££ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ vc?

<«<u

mm 09i-„0)
P»OT l"J»*n

"s ° 9 2 5 5 o c o o 3 3“3 3 3 3 3 3t3 a

S 5 2 2 2 S 2 22 2 22 2 2 2 ° ° °

2 222 2 2 2 2 2 & <* <?• o av <?> ^ <n ^ r.

• aqq
'p»OT 1*302

§ ill 1 i ! ! 1 I i! 1 ! 1 1 1 1 ! !i I

5 iSiflS Jl n s ji 2 [p!?r?fr! f ^ rr * , ^ < ^ roi => r ^' o;3

^ ^ ^ i^iir^vO lo lT 1 , m k^i tn, lo un lo \T\ m v£>

•jji 'aaqaaiija

^ 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 ^ r ' ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ " <r m x

• 00®CC » oo oo CO <N ooaocOaogoaoodooao<Nno<— <M

ao sj <r <r ^ <f •J’-j -j <r <r <r *r, < t >o ^

’ 3 J ‘M38u8i

I?, 2 2 2 2 2 2222®®°°°°°°°°°'°^

<r lo ,r- lt, ^ tn lh tnui u^!7l !7> ^ £

■U»D JO -on

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ® 22 ® ®oo <x> <x> oo m ^

‘3 l 'no
Xi ia*d*3

§ 88 1 1 ! I 1 1 Ilillllllllll

5 IS? S S S S S S 2 S 2 2 S 2 2?§ 2 ” 1

P#ua 0

t Iff t £ > t i >$>$**?***?*$

«»*ID

•-imk y;2 ~jirv r-^ oo o - '

-i >>> > > ri _ x <, x oo ? ? „v 7? 2

m n ^ ^ «i ^ 3

jCio3«7H

-o

►-< i

N U

^ c

w *-*

u < _c

M u

y -1 5C

aw c

a: <-}

P a M S

SuTPuna

Friedrichs ha fen

Friedrichshafen

Frankfurt am
Main

Friedrichshafen

Potsdam

Friedrichshafen

Potsdam

F riedr ichshafen
Friedrichshafen
Potsdam

Friedrichshafen

jaqmriN

SuipITnfl

2 ss h Srssss sssssssssss&K
2 332 22222 2 22 2 22 2222 22 2

^iSX?

jaqnnjt]

SuTPITnfl

TABLE 1 - (CONTINUED)

5 u a m d o \ a a a y

^ &<Pj Cm a. a* a.fi.CL. cu Oi c« a< cu ou a- a, a, t a, cl cf

B.jnuoH -

**) « n n n H OO XT

^ ° ^<^*-ir«sOr^ yOin^-*Ov»<N OO m «n

04 ^ 0,4 '* N <-* CM PM

3D7AJ9S
JO qrvo p»3*ld

1C H w ^ _ X r- X m X n» r-

®> o' O' — i o' — ~ " IIT vc — -®

. . _ C S' O' O' O' O' <-< — < — < O'

r~. 2 c- o 2 — — 3- — o-

5 * 2 « 2 2 «" ; o* oT i^T r^‘ » . . . S

Q. ■“ 00 ^ ™ “■ *-» - « xr ^

® o.^ :f o a. 3 ”5 a. ^ t> £" o i ^ ® £• ~Z £ *

< ^ < O < ou. < * £ £ £ -n <£ ^

3M8TU
WFi -

L' L/l!^ !C ifl « (T1 ^ in in X in i/> in Ln S'.

2 o, 2 2 CT, 2 ^ •"* o— 2 o-os cr J - ? O'

2 2 2 2 0 '-' 0 ' & ^ ~ r*. o, ^ — ■

~ 2 rM «0 CM (T r 1 O' K nT in S In 2 2^2 ri

5* CC C — — 80 (* Ct « a „ >^>Q. ^u> O

5 =3 ^ = = 33^ 3 * o 0U04I O £ O «

* ^ n ■'->n-><<t/3 <l0O zozwi OQ15 o

•H'd'W ' paadg

*J O O O OOOOOO 4J

o so X * X X X X x x O 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 ooooo o O

«n in in «n ui ^ ' J '' J « « \o >o jD x-xj >o x xs

^ ia i/)infl|iOkAiAi^kA

pup ‘on
- »ian?dojj|

E £ £ £ £ £ ££ £ c ccc cccc ccccc cc

isl S S JJ NN 2j p| ^ 4/ (U Oj U 1i U <L A#l»

£ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ e ccc rccc ccccc CC

^ 2 £ uti lI ^ OliOi <1 4< 0> t; ^ U O 01 1/ to

^ J J O O O R R R o OOO OOOO OOOOO CO

sj <r >j ^ <t ■» <r-» -<r <r <i x <r <f ^ <7 -.7 x x x -.* <1 <r

*d'H I»3ox

S 2 2 2 2 2 2 £ 2 ° ooo oooo ooooo oo

2i 2 O, o O ^ „ X XT X> £> O X) X> X) <7 sj <f >C >C >J X> X>

® ® 03 00 00 ® ®0O O' oo Oi OMj! O' O' O' 00 00 CC O' O' ao O' O'

*<TH iauf8ug

o o

2 2 2 2 2 ° 2 ~ 2 ° ooo oooo ooooo oo

cm ^ ^ cgiiS c5Sf5 CN S rsi r^(Nc5c5c'J f^cx

•auySug

Maybach

<r xr <f xf -a <r xrxj xf <r <J ^ -x si -j >j si xr xr xf xr xr xjxr

•Jto jortoj

«N <M CM CM CM (U CMCM CM rMCMCM CMCMCNCM <MCMCMCN<N CXIX

juaoaag
1*30X inj**n

o oo OOOOOO

■ * ■ • ■ ■ ■' ■ O O O O' OOOO O O' O O' O O' O'

n n n c^ co Cl Cl Cl Cl , , , , t , ( ,

^ ^ •* XT xT xj M n ci m nncnro n xt rt M ci XT -O

XT XT -O v? xT xT 'T XT XT XT XT XT XT XT -O

(«<U
“» 09£ * o 0)
p*oi injotfl

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 o ooo oooo ooooo oo

2 2 2 2 § 2 22 2 ° ooo oooo ooooo oo

o o O O O o OO O o O O ^ OOOO OiAOtAO 'T,

^ 2 2 22 2 « ci ci ao ci ci c\ ci n oo n oo ci oooo

CA m <n on on on on ci on ^ on on on onononon n ciw ci ci pnon

'p*og l»3oi

76,800

76.800

85.800

76.800
76,800
76,800
76,800

76.800

85.800

76.800

85.800

76.800

85.800
85,800

■3i ‘joaaotTa

ro mr^ m n rn

'Id 4 q38u»i

2 2 2 2 2 2 22 2 'O <« x « x> x> x x> x x x x> x x x

' ’ “• ^ ^ ^ m ci ci ® ci n ci ci tnaocnoom oo®

iA A »A A iA <A kA A lO lA cT> lA kA iA iA

»H»0 }0 *o N

^ ^ 'O 'O vO “kO **£> ^ ifl i^ oO if i£) ^ vO OO 50 CC 'O oo 00

*3i -no

iCqio*d*o

1,128,000

1,262,000

1,128,000

1,262,000

1,128,000

1,262,000

1,228,000

1,262,000

pau^O

Navy

Array

Navy

Army

Navy

Army

Navy

Array

Navy

Array

Navy

Army

Array

Army

Array

Army

Navy

B«»1D

o\ LA -X)\Or^r*-QOQG

— » r-J yv. ~ ^ 50 00 00 00 OV oo 0O OO 00 OO 00 COO

O r*-<r^ M r^- ro <T r>» in , ^ , ( ^ ^ ^ t iiiil ( rsi

j Z 3 A ^5 I A 2 ^

j0tO39XH

— - b£> 00

lA kA iA

rsi MM fv|

'O T3 -o T3

oj to v to

c ccc

<u w to <w

-C js r -e

4J 4J 4^

00 00 00 oo

c ccc

to to to to

J -J J J

P*HS

S«TPU n fl

Friedr ichsha f en

Loewentha 1
Potsdam

Friedrichshafen

Loewenthal

Friedrichshafen

Loewenthal

Friedrichshafen

Loewentha l

Potsdam

Friedrichshafen

Loewenthal

Friedrichshafen

Potsdam

Potsdam
Potsdam
Loewentha 1
Loewenthal
Potsdam

Potsdam

Friedrichshafen

joqmriN

8ufpnng

r~* rsi -r ^ ^ ^ O — ' (N fA 4 kA kO i() N N « OO?'

° ^ ^ ^ 5 * AAA A A tA A A A A A A A A

N PM N M N M M N ^ NRN NMNN ^ ^ N Pj NPM

ORIGINAL PAGE S
OF POOR QUALITY

- 11 -

TABLE 1 - (CONTINUED)

3a*odox»A»

•di.

3 at ec at a: at 06 at a6 at m m H H 3 Z 3 £ 3 >>

•M5uoh -•J3

^ ex wi tn c* ^ m <Mr» fl gjN cm f~,

<”> oo m «7 O' <•> ic oo o ~r \OtnwrM~I

»3TA4»S
jo 3«\) p*o»ld

Feb 7, 1917

Oct 8, 1920
Dec 29, 1916
Oct 20, 1917

Mar 17, 1917
Jan 5, 1918

Jun 17, 1917

Oct 20, 1917

July 1919
Jun 14, 1917
Oct 20, 1917

Jan 5. 1918

Jun 17, 1917
Oct 20, 1917

Jan 5, 1918
Auguit 1919

Jul 19, 1918

Aug 11, 1918
Oct 20, 1917

3i4TJ - 9JWQ

Nov 1, 1916

Feb 22, 1917
Nov 22, 1916
Apr 2, 1917

Dec 11, 1916
May 1, 1917

Jan 3, 1917

Jun 9, 1917

Jan 31, 1917
Feb 21, 1917
Mar 6, 1917
Apr 1, 1917

Apr 24, 1917

May 22, 1917
Jun 13, 1917

Jul 6, 1917
Jul 4. 1917

Aug 13, 1917

Aug 18, 191?
Sep 1, 1917

*H*d'W * pa»dg

ei ^ ^ ^ *0 *0 'O m m r-i <*i goo ooooo

s sss ssss i i i i i % a

pUF -on
- tiaxiadojj

S * * * » * * * S S. E S3 £33 3 23323

? GGC C C C C C C C C C >• >. 1 1 1 1 1

4» U ^ U <U«J <U 4J 4 , 4 j n, m m m m S'

t i- n ^ b * u v. EKCSmSKSS 2222?

nJ >J hI <-J »-J nJ ►— 1 iJ ►-J**) >—) e-j *-} .2J

^ ^ VO ^ vC VC vD *> in iS> ^ <*> ^ ^ ^ ^ <f <*

‘d *H l»30x

° OOOO OOO ooooo

*2 "2 '2 "I "2 "J "2 'JOOO OOO ooooo

2 -J- -J- <r <r <i cn <m <n <m <n ts, is <n ci rv «n

* d * H «»ux8ua

2 2222222 222° ooo ooooo

M NNN wii N W CN <N r2 <r fN ^

Maybach

Maybach
Maybach
May bach

Maybach
Mayba ch

Maybach

Maybach ‘

Maybach

MBM

y£> ^%£>s£>vOM3sOvr> m u-> to m m m to to ,0 to to

•4*0

<» -a- vr -<r <r -r -cr -o -o -a <r -o <r <r <j <r

<■^1 W N M M(s| M (vj (S lA i/> »/> lA kA lA iA nO sfl

vi m Ji m m m m m in m m ^ u 5 so vo ^ ^ S S

s 2 e ° 9 5 3 s — n — c 5 — s — s — o — s-s —

32 o§22 22 2 2 22 S 2 111 Is 1 ||

Nfs f'.P'.N P»h. N |s ^ oo 00 00 OO CO 0O 00 00 0O

'■91
*P»°1 x*3°X

132,000

132.000

133.000

134.000

134,000
134,000
1 34 , 000

134,000

134.300

434.300

'3J ‘4*3»«B*xa

'J-a v? <r <r c <r -j -.j <r <r vr <r <r <r <r

® » 0000(000 OO OO CO oo oo oo oo oo

‘lj38a»T

U' c^ cr> &i ix cr- in in m n m in in m in in in

32 33 33 3 3 3333 333 33 3 32

•U»0 J° * °N

S2 222—22 O' oo oo OO OO 0O 00 CC CO OD 4 4

■5d "O
X5X

1,940,000

1.940.000

1.960.000

1.970. 000

1,970,000

1.970.000

1.975.000
1,975,000

pBOftO

!'£ S' » si - r r t r $ > r s r >> $

zzxzzz < z z z zzai zzzkss

«»*I3

'S'" * co | cicr<r«.oo ■-< <ni o vO oo — , m m ^

*?N T'fT'T'f 1 ? rsl'f'T'f <r <r <r mm n mm

iJ J -J ►J .J hJhJJu JjjJj

1 II . S S ££ £ 1

■S 3 5 33 22 | „

tc % c tc $ * 1 -S -5 5 t-55 ^ .iJf

^ i 5 S ■$ -S S' -g $ B JI ^ S

2 3 |3J!!S.i3 » * . 5 2 2 5 1

£« ^ i: « 5 i: £ 5 £ i: ^

jaqmnji

* a IPlT n 8

ss j: s: s s g s s s a s s ;s j

33 ““ 33 3 3 3333 333 33 3 33

ORIGINAE PAG0 B

OF POOR QUALITY!

TABLE 1 - (CONTINUED)

t— I

9q3UOW ‘SJ11

22.5

8.3

19.7

10.2

2.3

1.7

3.7

8.5

aojAjaS jo
3 ng paoBXd

Jul 17, '13

Jan 10, 16

Hay 1, 16
Dec 15, 15

Jul 5, 15

Nov 18, 15
Mar 6, 17

Nov 20, 17
Mar 30, 17
Jul 28, 16

Sept 3 16
Dec 28, 16
Feb 8, 17

May 11, 17
Summer 17

Summer 17
Summer 17
Feb 8, 17

3q8lld

39J B1BQ

Oct. 17, 11
Feb 28, 14

Feb 4, 15
Apr 25, 15

Jun '15

Sept 19,15
Sept 3, 15

Mar 30, 16
May 24, 16
May 17, 16

Aug 2, 16
Nov 9, 17
Oct 19, 16

Aug 23, 16
Nov 9, 16

Jan 18, 17
Mar 22, 17

‘paadg

44.0

55.0

52.5

53.0

51.5

57.5

56.0

57.5

56.0

57.0

53.5
About

56.0
56.0

56.0

*d ' H *18301
* BaujSug

480

720

840

960

240

180

210

240

a^ev;
‘ sau^aug

Mercedes

Maybach

•ofj ‘saufSug

cm <r <r <r <r <r

iuaaaag
‘TB30X in^asn

i oo cr\ ro <y cn in x> co vi .j Ki cm 3 >j >3'<r

. . . . . . . . ... • • 01 - o •

O O r- a> o — i o 00 ■ — 'O'- (JS Ov > N JD 00 00 CO 00

n n n mm ^ ~cr-T <r u’' <r <r <r o c

spunod
"W 09i- o 0 3e
‘psoi injasn

9,900

17.000

23.000

29.000
30,700

31,400

34.800

34.200

41.100
43,600

46.200

About

46,200

45.800
Over

44.000
About

45.100

45,100

epunod
‘pBog ibjoi

49,200

60,000

65.800

77.800
77,800

77,800

84 , 500
84,500

84 , 500

84,500

93,300

*qg ‘jajaaiBjci

60.3

59.7

64.8
64.8

64.8

66.0

430

473

512

503

532

572

■^ksk

•— < l/1 \£> r-^ r~- OO CO OOqOO'CJ'OmCJ'Q' CTn O' O' O'

•3J * n D
Xa^DBdBO

724.000

883.000

968.000

1,144,000

1.144.000

1.240.000
1,240,000

1,240,000

1.240.000

1.370.000

1,370,000

1.370.000

13.70.000
13,70,000

/tq paurtQ

Schut te
Lanz

Array

Army

Navy

Army

Navy

Arny

Navy

Army

88B10

o h n n in

— h cn cm m in r- co o> — ■ «-**-• <-* ’~ l o

i i • 1 1 i II lllllll » CT\

►J >-J i-J j h) j j j iJ iJ J -J * 1 *,

co co co co c n co co co C/5 t/i CO CO co co co co tijcuaj

P a MS

SuTpiTng

Rheinau

Rheinau
Sandhof en

Darnstadt

Leipzig

Rheinau

Leipzig

Rheinau

Leipzig

Zeesen

Leipzig

Rheinau

Leipzig

Zeesen

Leipzig

— — i

aaqmnf4

3u7PTI n 8

SL-L

SL-2
Rblt .
SL-2

SL-3

SL-4

SL-5

. SL-6
SL-7

SL-8

SL-9

SL-10

SL-11

SL-12

SL-13

SL-14

SL-15

SL-16

SL-17

SL-18

■M

CT}

ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF POOR QUALITY

- 15 -

relative unimportance, since they cannot be classified as successful or import-
ant in influencing the development of German airships. From this data. Figure
4 has been prepared to show the technological evolution of both the Zeppelin
(rigid) and Schutte-Lanz (rigid) airships during this period.

At the extreme top of Figure 4, the year the first airship of a particular
Zeppelin type appeared and the L-Z number of that ship are given. Type let-
ters assigned to the various classes of ships are given in the third heading at
the top of the figure. Where several types include airships that have differ-
ent characteristics, these types have been plotted separately on each curve
(see H, H', H P, P 1 ; and R, R', and R " ). For instance, airships H, H',
and H" are the same particular letter type, but they had to be plotted separ-
ately since their characteristics varied and showed development within the
type. The designation of the Schutte -Lanz airships is included with the various
plots .

Curve A of Figure 4 shows the improvement that occurred in the impor-
tant useful load -to -total load (gross weight) index. Improvement in the Zep-
pelins from a 20 percent factor in 1900 to a 65 percent factor at the close of
World War I represented a very substantial improvement. Later airships,
German Zeppelins included, did not have useful load-to-gross weight ratios
approaching the 65 percent factor of the earlier Zeppelins. The early Zep-
pelin airships had higher useful load-to-gross weight ratios for the following
reasons :

1. They were designed to much less severe strength criteria,
especially with regard to aerodynamic loads on the hull
and tail surfaces.

2. They carried no electronic gear except a small radio.

3. Crew accommodations were extremely meager.

4. They carried no landing gear to speak of, no hydraulic
systems, no bow mooring, and no power boost for control.

5. Their gas valve complement permitted a rate of ascent
of only 6 meters per second.

Curve B of Figure 4 indicates that maximum speed capabilities rose from
8.94 to 37. 01 m/s (20 to 82.8 mph), with more than half this increase occurring

- 16 -

DATE 1900 ’05 *08 ’09 *10 *11 *12
LZ NO .1 i 2 4 6 7 9 11

TYPE A A BB* C DD* E FF* G

12*

13*

13’

14'

15*

HH’ET I

1»

PP'

15* 16* 17* 17* 17* 17* 17* 18' 19*

59 62 91 92 95 100 102 112 120

Q R R*R" S T U VV W X yy

WATTS, 1.0 mph = 4.470 x 10" 1 m/s

Figure 4 - Characteristics of German Zeppelin and
Schutte-Lanz Rigid Airships*

between 1914 and 1918. Accompanying this increase in speed was a similar
increase in horsepower. The increase in horsepower is shown in Curve C in
horsepower per 1000 cu ft. Curves B and C show that, when airship type R
is compared with types S, T, U, and V, better aerodynamic efficiencies are
obtained for the latter configurations.

. 17 -

Curve D shows the increase in horsepower that resulted in the increase
in speed portrayed in Curve B. Curves E, F, and G show the general evolu-
tion to larger capacity ships, with increases in both diameter and length oc-
curring. Curve H shows the number of gas cells as a function of airship type.
Curve I depicts the number of each type of airship built.

General data and characteristics relative to the two most notable German
airships, the Graf Zeppelin and Hindenburg, have been included in Table 3,
which lists all major rigid airships. Table 4 gives a detailed weight breakdown
of these two German airships and the other notable rigids.

B ritish

The designers of Vickers Limited produced Britain's first rigid airship
for the British Navy in 1911 . This ship had a 19, 994 cu m (706, 000 cu ft)
capacity, was framed of aluminum and incorporated swiveling propellers, and
had water recovery apparatus and mooring mast provisions. This ship was
wrecked through inexperience in ground handling, which resulted in halting all
rigid airship development in Britain.

In 1913, the admiralty again contracted for another rigid airship from
Vickers. After ordering work on it suspended once in 1914, the airship R-9
was finally completed and successfully flown in April 1917. The R-9 had a
32, 656 cu m (800, 000 cu ft) capacity and was used extensively in training crews
and developing the swiveling propellers and mooring mast inventions. The R-9
established the "23" class airships, and several 25,488 cu m (900,000 cu ft)
airships were built.

The "33" class rigid airships built by the British took the name from the
German airship L-33 (brought down in Scotland in 1916) and were directly
copied from it. These ships had a 56, 640 cu m (2, 000, 000 cu ft) capacity, and
one of them (the R-34) made the Trans -Atlantic flight to New York in May 1919.
The class "33" airships were the only successful rigids the British ever built,
and their success is reportedly due to the Zeppelin design.

The next attempt, a much larger ship - the R-38, was lost with all hands
in 1921 and stopped the airship program for another eight years, at which
time Britain designed and built the R-100 and the R-101.

- 18 -

TABLE 3 - CHARACTERISTICS OF RIGID AIRSHIPS (REFERENCES 3,4, and 5)*

r A\

entirely aerostatic in that "heavy" take offs were not utilized; Lift of helium at 59°F, 29.92 in :

purity is used and is 0.062 lbs/ft 3 ; corresponding lift for hydrogen is 0.068 lbs/ft 3 ; fuel gas is

50 knots

Total gas volume (2,800,000 cubic ft. was H 2 ); 1,100,000 was fuel gas)

Minus airplane compartment of 2664 Kg

TABLE 4 - DETAILED WEIGHTS FOR NOTABLE RIGID AIRSHIPS (REFERENCE 6)*

95 percent inflation with gas and lift given in Table

These ships had a 144, 432 cu m (5, 100, 000 cu ft) capacity and a radical
design that used a few heavy longitudinal members instead of many light
stringers. The outer covering was unstable in the large flat areas between
these members and had to be pulled inward, which gave the ship a peculiar
fluted effect. This also limited the gas capacity and reputedly resulted in an
overweight design.

Great Britain finally discontinued further rigid airship development after
the R- 101 was lost in a flight across France; the flight was started immediately
after an extra bay for increased lift had been added. The evidence brought for-
ward by the court of inquiry investigating the crash disclosed that the lift still
was not favorable and that the cell wires were slackened to further increase
volume before the last flight, which permitted the cells to chafe on the longitudi-
nal girders. The airship crashed due to a sudden loss of lift. The R-100 was
scrapped shortly after the loss of the R-101, thus ending Great Britain’s rigid
airship efforts .

Table 3 compares the British R-34, R-38, R-100, and R-101 with the
other rigid airships of major interest.

Ame rican

American rigid airship programs started with the launching of the Shen-
andoah from Lakehurst Naval Air Station in 1923 and with a research project
in 1922, which was to result in the ZMC-2 metalclad airship.

The most notable American rigid airships were the Akron and Macon.
Table 3 compares the general characteristics of these airships with other
notable rigid airships. Table 4 compares the detailed weight breakdown of
the Akron and Macon (Macon data presented) with detailed weight breakdowns
of other notable rigids.

Extensive technical data, analysis, design information, and test results
are available at Goodyear relative to the Akron and Macon airships but seem-
ingly are not of general interest and accordingly are not included in this his-
torical overview. Should any of this data be used subsequently, it will be
presented at that time.

‘'Akron was slightly heavier.

- 21 -

Figure 5 summarizes the development of the rigid airship and shows that
various rigid airship projects have continued at Goodyear. The detailed weight
breakdown resulting from extensive design and cost analyses conducted in the
mid- 1940‘s by Goodyear relative to a 2 83, 2 00 cu m (10 million cubic foot) air-
ship for both passenger and cargo transportation is included in Table 4.

Non-rigid Airships
German

Table 5 summarizes the characteristics of the major German non-rigid
airships, which were all constructed prior to or during World War I. The
Wullenkemper organization has recently designed and built non-rigid airships.

F rench

Appendix A of Volume IV summarizes the characteristics of several
French non-rigid airships.

British

Although the British preceded the United States to some extent in the de-
velopment of non-rigid airships, there appears to be no significant differences
in the configurations; thus, British data are not presented.

Ame rican

America, by far, has been the major builder of non-rigid airships and,
with minor exception, the only builder of them since the close of World War I.
Appendix B of Volume IV summarizes the non-rigid airships manufactured by
Goodyear, which has been the major supplier. Table 6 summarizes the charac-
teristics of various types of American non-rigids.

Another American non-rigid airship of interest is the metalclad ZMC-2
built by the Aircraft Development Corporation for the Navy. The character-
istics of this configuration are also summarized in Table 6, with added detail
in Table 7. As pointed out in several references to the ZMC-2, it does not
compare favorably with the conventional construction because for smaller sizes
the minimum gage restriction relative to the thickness of the metal covering
severely penalizes the metalclad.

-22

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970

TABLE 5 - GERMAN NON-RIGID AIRSHIPS (REFERENCE 1 )

Ajo^sth

aot Ajas

ut paajexd

pu« sja6ua
-ssea jo jaqutnN

Wl 4-> 4J
■-* -H C

tr -h n

3 e

H JJ J3 Ifl
II ft H) "H
4) >i fa XJ

o u
x id
o o

*H’<TW 1 paads

>i a
<d 4)

Ol O H IN
O rH If) »— •
OV O' 1-1 CTV

O C 4J o

dj id u <u

Q a Q Q

^ O >ihJ3 O'
U O Id ft 111 3

Q Q 3S X U, a

ft m I

a 3
^ ™

o o m in ® <43 04 m in m o in in ®

1H HCO o o r>
4 m <t»i r-i «r

in m
r> n

U M
XI X
ro Id

^ Ih U t4 X

xi x x x id

id id id « rH

fa fa fa fa fa

<D £U (JJ 4)

X X X X

W 03 CO tO

C C

X) X 4J X X X)

O (C id id id O

0 HHH H O

s fa fa a< fa £

Q> 01
01 0)

X 4-1

10 to

oj o) a>

X X XJ
id id 0

C c
© 0
XJ XJ
0 0
0 0
-fe-S-

*0 XJ
D 0;

T3 T)
id <d

X! XJ
<L» 01
X) T>
m id

'O'O'O'O'O'O t) tJ X

©©©©©© ojojoj

'Oxj'O'O'O'O d d d
id id id id id d id id id
■ — 1 i—i i — 1 r -1 • — 1 <-H 1 — I H i-t r4 H 1 — (<—!<— I

co co ca m cq pqaoqcqcqgq pqpqpq

XJ XJ XJ Xl XI
II 1) 0) HI 0)
Xl Xl TJXJ "O
id id id id id

XJ XI

at ai

XJ XJ
id id

H H (NM N HfN INMINN (N N IN

*d*H

ta^oi, # «au76ua

a^«W ' eauiBug

jaquniN 'au^Bug

^uao jaj

injaen

o m 00 o

MN O l n V
inin n

000000 000

in O IN O to 43 « 4) 4)
v in m n mmen

0) 01

«H •“ 4

E E

0) x X cr X X X X X X

• 0 rH 0) «• CJ * c ‘OUOOUU

0 me- 400« d-HUdOd lOdn

■ 4JH g . . 4 • X *xxxxxx

< a « -I < < >1

• d Q id ■ • id >0 > id id <d <d id «

2 < ozza: zac zmjisr

X X

u u

id id
X X
>1

<d id
£ £

rH IN (N IN rH CN (NINININ INININ <N(N tT

o in
o r-

in r- o <«r

spunod

'P»oq x n J aB fl

spunod

'p»oq xb^oj,

qaaj * ja^auiBTQ

}aa,3 'qftfiuaq

0000 00 00 0000

INOvifl IN m O « Iflh

n 1000 h i" 41 00 00 <H <— 1 <n

rH to to

IN VO 43 *T

n ifi 4 in

0000 00 0000000

43000 00 O OOOOOOO

Id IN n OO IN fN O O O IN r-

O O
O O

o o

r0 43 OO OV

m ov ov
43 o in o

nj\ o> io in ov m in <n

43 O 1/lMMOIMffiH

in in ■» v in in inirm

IN 00

ov m

rHOVlOm rH VO OlOVCTlCOOVincO

m in m in m r- voinvoor-r-o

rH IN IN IN rH IN IN IN N I*) N N n

IN CTV
O VO
m m

qj *no 'A^TOBdBO

uox}«u 6 xsaa

dyqB jtv

U) OJ

<u o
E 3
0) X

o o
o o
o o

OOOO OO OOOOOOO
OOOO OO OOOOOOO
OOOO OO OOOOOOO

o o
o o
o o

hooo o rn in in i*i n m »-t m

m n 10 oi 43 in co 00 in m in h 10

<N in in m in <n m m m m m

X X X X

g. a, a. fa

in m v 10 n 0 oi

ll l l 1 1 1 1 1

XX xxxxxxx

ft) fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa

ORIGINAL PAGE 18
- 24 - OF POOR QUALITY

PL-22-23-24 Never Conipleted

1.0 ft = 3. 048 X 10' 1 m, I. 0 lbm = 4. 536 X 10* 1 kg, 1. 0 HP

TABLE 6 - AMERICAN NON-RIGID AIRSHIP CHARACTERISTICS

ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF POOR QUALTTYI

TABLE 6 - (CONTINUED)

TABLE 7 - ZMC-Z CHARACTERISTICS (REFERENCE 7)*

Length of Hull 149 ft. 5 in.

Diameter of Hull (max.) 52 ft. 8 in.

Fineness Ratio 2.83

Displacement of Hull 202,200 cu. ft.

Total Ballonet Displacement 50,600 cu. ft.

Front Ballonet Displacement 22,600 cu. ft.

Rear Ballonet Displacement 28,000 cu. ft.

Ratio of Ballonet Volume to Hull Volume 25%

Thickness of Skin 0.0095 in.

Length of Car 24 ft.

Width of Car 6 ft. 6 in.

Number of Air Valves 3

Number of Gas Valves 2

Number of Fins 8

Total Fin Area 44 0 sq. ft.

Total Elevator Area 190 sq. ft.

Total Rudder Area 95 sq. ft.

Total Automatic Rudder Area 95 sq. ft.

Engines (Wright Whirlwind J-5 2

Power at 1,800 r.p.m 440 h.p.

Propeller Diameter (all metal) 9 ft. 2 in.

Lineal Feet of Seam 17,600 ft.

Surface Area 19,436 sq. ft.

PERFORMANCE DATA OF THE ZMC-2 METALCLAD

Gross lift (100 per cent, inflation with 92 per cent,
pure helium at 60 deg. Fahr. and 29.92 in. Hg.).

Weight Empty

Useful Load

Crew (three) 600 lb.

Fuel (200 gal.) 1,200 lb.

Oil (25 gal.) 200 lb.

Ballast (50 gal.) 420 lb.

Passengers and Cargo 707 lb.

Range with 250 gal. (Cruising Speed)
Maximum Possible Range (still air) .

Maximum Speed at 440 h.p

Cruising Speed at 220 h.p

Static Ceiling

12,242 lb.
9,115 lb.
3,127 lb.

760 mi.
1,120 mi .
70 m. p . h.
56 m. p. h.
9,000 ft.

*1.0ft= 3.048xl0 m , 1.0 lbm = 4.536 X 10 ^ kg, 1.0 mi = 1.852 X 10^ m,

1 . 0 mph = 4.470x 10 * m/s , lsqft = 0.0929 sqm, 1.0 cu ft = 2.832 X 10 ^ cu m

27 -

This minimum gage penalty disappears with increasing size. The Aircraft
Development Corporation in the 1930's prepared proposed configurations for a
variety of applications and compared notable rigid airships as illustrated in
Table 8. The data of this table indicates the MC-72 metalclad compares
favorably with the Akron.

In Reference 9, C. P. Burgess compares the Aircraft Development Corp-
oration's proposed MC-74* with the Akron. Burgess terms the MC-74 esti-
mate "an honest and careful piece of work" but states in light of experience
that he believes the actual empty weight would be about 15 percent over the
estimate. This would bring the 209, 568 cu m (7,400, 000 cu ft) MC-74 to
essentially 107, 049 . 6 kg (236, 000 lb). Burgess then shows that the reason

TABLE 8 - COMPARISON OF AKRON (ZRS-4) AND
PROPOSED MC-72 METALCLAD a

ITEM

COMPARA 1 :
ZRS -4 b

riVE DATA
MC-7 2

Displacement (Air), ft. 3

7,250,000

7,260,000

100% Gas Volume, f t . ^

6,850,000

7,080,000

Total Lift, Helium Lifting .062 lb. /ft . /

95% full, lb

403,000

417,000

Weight Empty, lb

233,000

249,000

Useful Load, lb

170,000

168,000

Useful Load/Total Lift

42.2

40.3

Useful Load per 1,000 ft.^ Displacement, lb. .

23.5

23.2

Motors

Maybach (8)

Horse-Power

4,480

Maximum Speed, m.p.h

Useful Load per Horse-Power, lb

38.0

37.5

Number of Gas Cells

Lift of Largest Cell, 95% full, lb

57,000

49,000

Lift of Largest Cell/Useful Load

33.5

29.1

Lift of Largest Cell/Total Lift

14.1

11.7

a i.O ft = 3.048 X 10 1 m, 1.0 lbm = 4.536 X 10 1 kg, 1.0 HP = 7.457 X 10 2 watts

1.0 mph = 4.470 X 10 ^ m/s, 1.0 cu ft = 2.832 X 10 2 cu m

b Data from reference 7 which recognized the Akron data as
unofficial. Akron data not changed from values of refer
ence 7 since differences are not substantial.

The MC-74 (slightly larger than the MC-72) has the same air volume as
Akron.

- 28 -

for the MC - 74 empty weight being le s s than the Akron (110, 147. 69 kg , or
Z4Z, 830 lb, is the value Burgess uses) is not due to inherent advantages in
the metalclad design. He states that they differ because of such items as
lighter engines. In Table 9, Burgess compares the weight estimate of the
Aircraft Development Corporation with his own relative to what is basically
termed nonpropulsive structural weight.

Burgess believes the comparisons favor the conventional rigid construc-
tion by about 1416 kg (5000 lb) but the metalclad has a slight advantage in empty
weight- to -gross lift ratio. In any event, Burgess 1 comparison supports the basic

TABLE 9 - STRUCTURAL WEIGHT (POUNDS) OF
AKRON AND MC-74 (REFERENCE 9)*

AKRON
(actual )

—

MC-74
(estimate )

MC-74

(+15%)

Hull plating or cover

11,721

42 , 032

48,337

Longitudinals

22,641

12,613

14 , 505

Main frames

37,101

27,548

31,680

Intermediate and splicing frames . . .

12,067

3,974

4,570

Corridors

8,217

5,485

6,308

Shear wiring

5,200

—

Gas cell wiring

3,750

—

Cover wiring

1,905

—

Miscellaneous structure

2,820

2,713

3,120

Total hull structure

105,402

94 ,3 65

108,520

Gas cells, valves, etc

25,127

19,239

22,125

Blower system

—

4 , 065

4,675

Total comparative weights

130,529

117,669

135,320

Comp, weight/gross lift

32.4%

27.4%

31.6%

*1 . 0 lbm = 4. 536 X 10" 1 kg

- 29 -

contention that the disadvantage that smaller metalclads have due to minimum
gage considerations all but disappear when considering airships of the Akron
and Macon size. *

Although the ZMC-2 metalclad was used for 12 years, the airship never
flew an extensive number of hours (about 2250 total). There are perhaps two
reasons for this:

1. Extreme unsteadiness in rough air due to exceedingly low
slenderness ratio (in order to attain maximum structural
efficiency) and the small size of the fins

2. Available funds in the Navy were apparently being directed
to the more conventional rigid LTA configurations rather
than ’'experimenting 11 with new innovations.

In a later article (see Reference 10), Burgess suggests altering the slen-
derness ratio to attain a compromise between structural efficiency and aero-
dynamic performance. In this same article, Burgess establishes the approx-
imate weights and principal characteristics (see Table 10) of what he terms
an ultimate airship (for 1939) that has the same air volume as the Akron and
Macon.

Burgess's suggestions relative to the nature of the ultimate airship in-
clude:

1. Using the metalclad construction with no compartment-
alization.

2. Using 15 percent ballonet volume.

3. Reducing drag of the Akron and Macon by 30 percent by
such approaches as placing the car in the nose of the air-
ship and the air scoops for the ballonets in the nose area;

Based on material properties of that point in time.

25% ballonet volume is more typical for non-rigids, but Burgess suggests
that during descent following an emergency ascension above pressure
height that air be pumped directly into the helium with subsequent purifi-
cation of the helium being required. This emergency provision also is
normally available on non-rigid designs.

-30

. 0 nauti mi = 1 . 85i X 1 0 m, 1.0 statute mi = 1.609 X 10

using the metal hull for cooling the helium, which in turn
is used to cool the radiators and water recovery apparatus.

4. Some minor improvements in specific fuel consumption
and propeller efficiency that have since been realized.

Since the Burgess configuration has an empty weight of about 60 percent
that of the Akron (which has the same total displacement) and a 75 percent
greater useful load capacity, the configuration should be considered in the
conventional LTA parametric weight studies.

Burgess was clearly impressed with the potential of the metalclad airship
but expressed concern relative to manufacturing costs of the larger metalclads.
Estimates by the Aircraft Development Corporation during the 1930's (Refer-
ence 7), however, do not indicate excessive manufacturing costs.

In Reference 11, Adm. Rosendahl states that flying the ZMC-2 was a "very
tricky" proposition due to sudden changes in buoyancy resulting from the rapid
transmission of heat to and from the helium by the metal hull, which was in
direct contact with the helium. Other considerations tend to moderate the
thinking that the metalclad is a concept without fault or shortcoming; these
considerations are discussed in the parametric analysis subsection of this
report. This is not to say that there are not viable solutions for those prob-
lems of which we are aware or for those problems that are unknown. With
the metalclad, however, all aspects of its design, manufacture, and operation
must be carefully considered.

Table 11 gives a detailed weight breakdown for the ZPG-3 W as configured
for its aircraft early warning (AEW) military mission and with its military
equipment stripped.

Semi-rigid Airships

Table 12 summarizes the characteristics of the German semi-rigid air-
ships. As in the rigids, a general evolution to larger, faster, and at the same
time more efficient configurations can be seen in this table.

- 32 -

TABLE 11 - DETAILED WEIGHTS FOR ZPG-3W WITH AND
WITHOUT MILITARY EQUIPMENT (REFERENCE 13)*

Item

Weight (pounds)

Weight empty (total)

67, 566 + (56, 58Z ) *

Envelope group (dacron):

41, 986 (41, 986)

Enve lope

12, 690

Ballonets

Z, 2 1 1

Ai r lines

514

Car suspension

1, 414

Bow stiffening and mooring

1 , 559

Fin suspension

377

Car fairing

4 84

Access shaft and walkway

44 1

Mi scellane ous

2, 296

Tail group

3,701 (3, 701)

Car group

4,570 (4,570)

Alighting gear group

1,190 (1, 190)

Pressure group

2,076 (2,076)

Ballast group

750 (750)

Surface control group

1,230 (1,230)

Outrigger group

880 (880)

Engine section and nacelle group

1,446 (1,446)

Propulsion group:

8,307 (8,307)

Engine installation

3, 527

Accessory gear boxes and drives

207

Air induction system

Exhaust system

135

Cooling system

322

Lubricating system

484

Fuel system

2, 160

Engine controls

106

Starting system

Propeller installation

1, 527

Auxiliary power unit

760 (0)

Instruments and navigation equipment group:

580 (580)

Instruments

486

Navigational equipment

Hydraulic group

430 (430)

Electrical group

3,176 (794)

Electronics group

12, 162 (4, 320)

Furnishings and equipment group

2, 164 (2, 164)

Air conditioning and anti-icing group;

Equipment group

1,363 (1,363)

Air conditioning

1 , 307

Anti -icing

Auxiliary gear

795 (795)

^ Numbers without parenthesis refer to the ZPG-3W as configured for military mission.
♦Numbers with parenthesis refer to the ZPG-3W without military equipment.

*1.0 lbm = 4. 536 X 1 O' 1 kg

ORIGINAL PAGE IS
OF POOR QUALITY!

TABLE 12 - CHARACTERISTICS OF GERMAN SEMI-RIGID AIRSHIPS (REFERENCE 1)*

uj peo»xd

MOJO pu» BJOfiuO

-39«d jo joqumK

U 0)
•H Cu

U <D

•h a
U S
P

p p

<T3 o

ffl O

*H * d 4 K i poods

XOJJO 40 W

joqumN

* d * H

X«qoi 'boutBus

9 i(vw ' 60 ut 6 u 3

JoqumN 'oujBua

quoo J o<j 4 X^ox
Xnjosn

Bpunod

'p*oq x^jasn

apunod

' P»oq x«^oi

qooj 1 joqouiaxa

qood # qq 6 uoT

qj * no

uo^qouBjeoa

dxn«jxv

0) ai
P T3
fC 0

rH O

ft?

•o

TO T3

(D 0)
T3 T)
ro <0

*qoeuos«g
joh pue ssojd Jofaw jo
uBt sop oqq oq s^jom dxqSJXV
Auijv uoTssnJd Aq qxT n 9

n o\ i— i <7\

rH O rH O

O' O' O'

XI U

<d a
fa <

O' u

a a>
«i fi ...

O' M
3 <0

(NO CN

CN 00 i-H

ro m

0) rH

TJ <0
0 P

i0 XJ
P O
0) O

-S-S_

d c
ai ai

??
o o
S .S.

■CJ

at 0)

TJ 'O

0) o

T3 "O V t3

5) v o> a>

Tl *0
$ 01

tj *a

T! T3

'O *0 *D TJ

T3 TO

ffl

ai <n

<0 ffl

ro fO ro f0

it} (0

rH rH

HHHH

rH rH

ffl

cq ffl

ffl ffl

ffl ffl 0 ffl

ffl ffl

fN ro

ro rr

fN Tf TT fN

TT rN

fN fN

fN CN

fN TT fN fN

<N fN

-cr

o o

O O O

in in

m o

O O CD

rH rH

rH ro

ro *T "T

CP O'

c c

'H -H

p p

H U

0 O
X X

O' O'

c c

-H H
p p
M M
0 0
X X

fN fN

■<r <n

CO CO O 00

O O
O O

o o

I P XJ o

3 0)

X >

KO O

r- m

o o
Tj> O
ID O

o o

VO Tf

rH O'

a«

o c
o c

lO P-

o o
o o
id in

{-* VO
O' fN

r>- r-

m io

' H fN

O O
O O
O O

o o
3 o

D O

o o
o o
o o

'O ^

£7

° R tGftf AT ,

1 Pm «^S}r

d m
r>

H fN

o) a>

O U M

ro <-H HJ H H

rH I H <H | M

rH a t. m ar *-t

T 3 t 3 o

01 M <U P ffl

o M u rH «H >

ffl M ffl H 0 .H

H I >H> 3 Ol

as h a *-h p u sc

0) I 0) 0)

x s: x x

Table 13 summarizes the characteristics of two notable Italian configura-
tions, the Roma and the Norge, as well as the American RS-1. The historic
flight from Rome to the North Pole in 1926 by the Norge is reported in Refer-
ence 12. Appendix A of Volume IV summarizes the characteristics of other
Italian semi-rigid configurations .

Analysis of Data (Rigid, Non-rigid, Semi-rigid)

The rigid airship data from Tables 1, 3, and 4 have been plotted in Figure
6 in the form of useful lift-to -gros s lift ratio as a function of air volume.
Figure 6 also shows the same ratio for the airship that Burgess in Reference
3 refers to as the ultimate airship, as well as the 1944 Goodyear design for a
290, 280 cu m (10, 250, 000 cu ft) rigid

Several factors are apparent from Figure 6:

1. The British R-100 and 101 do not compare favorably with
the other configurations, which is why they are often re-
ported as being overweight.

1- R‘34 6. GRAF ZEPPELIN 11. HINDENBURG

* SAME AS AIR V0LUMF. CUBIC FEET x 10

AIRSHIP TOTAL VOLUME- CUBIC FT X 10’ 6

Figure 6 - Useful Lift -to -Gros s Lift Ratio vs Airship Volume
(Past Rigid Airship Configurations)

- 35 -

TABLE 13 - CHARACTERISTICS OF RS-1, ROMA, AND NORGE SEMI-RIGID AIRSHIPS

(REFERENCE 3)* +

2. German military rigids at the end of World War 1 exhibited
much higher useful lift-to -gross lift ratios than any air-
ships that followed.

3. The significant technology advancements incorporated in
the Akron, Macon, and Hindenburg rigids are not apparent
because the hulls of these configurations were noticeably
stronger (and accordingly heavier) than prior designs.

The necessity for the added strength resulted from flight
experience with the earlier rigids and the wind tunnel
testing associated with these most recent airships. The
relative hull strengths of the more notable rigid airships
are provided in a subsequent subsection of this overview.

4. Hydrogen-filled airships have a superior useful lift-to -
gross lift ratio than helium -filled airships.

5. While the two lines portraying the "average” useful lift-
to -gross lift ratios for hydrogen- and helium -filled air-
ships are not exact, they generally illustrate:

a. Hydrogen filled airships generally have exhibited
useful lift-to -gros s lift ratios ranging from 0.45 to
0.5 0.

b. Helium -filled airships generally have exhibited a
useful lift -to -gros s lift ratio of about 0.40.

The ratio of these values is slightly greater than the ratio
of the lift of the gases although not significantly so.

6. The proposed 1944 Goodyear design has a useful lift-to-
gross lift ratio comparable to prior experience but is
somewhat improved in view of interim technology advances.

The column entitled "Percent of Total" in Table 4 basically
shows the areas of the design in which these improvements
took place.

7. The improvement associated with C. P. Burgess ultimate
airship is readily apparent.

The empty weight -to -gas volume ratio better attests to the efficiency of a
given past configuration than the useful lift-to -gros s lift ratio. This volume

37 -

ratio measures efficiency in that it considers the total "cost" to achieve a lift -
ing capability (empty weight) as well as measures the total lifting capability
achieved (the gas volume). This parameter also removes the effect of the dif-
ferences in lifting gases and conditions of comparison (percent inflation, purity
of lifting gas, and temperature of lifting gas). It also is one of the better
methods to compare past rigid, non-rigid, and semi-rigid configurations. It
is, however, somewhat unfair to the recent non-rigid configurations in that it
does not account for the benefits derived by heavy takoffs but does account for
the penalty paid in terms of the increased landing gear weight required to per-
form a heavy takeoff, since the gear increases the empty weight. The lower
the empty weight -to -total gas volume ratio the more efficient is the configura-
tion.

In Figure 7, the empty weight-to -gas volume ratio is a function of airship
gas volume for the rigid airships of Figure 6. Some of the same conclusions
in Figure 6 are still discernible but generally speaking the hydrogen- and
helium -filled airships are very comparable in Figure 7.

0.05

0.04

t—

Ul.

g 0.03

LkJ

O 0.02

on
<C
C 3

g 0.01

O 3

6 4

R. 34 9. HINOENBURG

R-38 10 . MOST EFFICIENT GERMAN AIRSHIPS

SHENANDOAH OF MW I

LOS ANGELES 11. ULTIMATE AIRSHIP BY C.P. BURGESS
GRAF ZEPPELIN (1937)

R-100 1? IQdd r.nnnvrflD nrctnw

□

. q5

R- 101

AKRON & MAC

—

□

>10

LEGENE

O HYDROGEN
□ HELIUM

NOTES: OAT
1 . 0
1 n

FROM TABLE
ft - 3.041
i 1 bm = 4.5;

i x 1 0” 1 m ;
36 x 10~ ] k

)—

— — l . u

5 6 7 8 ,

AIRSHIP MAXIMUM GAS VOLUME - CUBIC FT X 10 " 6

Figure 7 - Empty Weight-to-Gas Volume Ratio as a Function of Gas Volume

(Past Rigid Airship Configurations)

-38

These data reflect different design criteria such as design velocities.

Note, however, that the hull strength of the Akron, Macon, and Hindenburg
is very similar {see Page 110).

The non-rigid and semi-rigid data from Tables 5, 6, 12, and 13 have been
plotted in Figure 8 in the form of useful lift-to-gross lift ratio as a function of
total volume. Figure 8 shows the following:

1. Early German non-rigid configurations exhibited a greater
useful lift-to-gross lift ratio than subsequent configurations
for essentially the same reasons cited for the early German
rigids .

2. The improvement within the helium -filled non-rigid air-
ships is technology related and not size related. As in
the rigid airships, the technology impact is not readily
apparent due to corresponding increases in strength
criteria. In addition, the increase in design velocity
(which converts to a factor of four in terms of dynamic

1. MOST EFFICIENT GERMAN MILITARY NON-RIGID (1917)

2. EARLY AMERICAN NON-RIGID - B TYPE (1916)

3. RECENT AMERICAN NON-RIGID - ZPG-3W (1969)

4. MOST EFFICIENT GERMAN MILITARY SEMI-RIGID (1914)

5. ROMA SEMI-RIGID (1919)

6. NORGE SEMI-RIGID (1923)

7. RS-1 SEMI-RIGID (1925)

8. GOODYEAR NON-RIGID DESIGN STUDY

AIRSHIP TOTAL VOLUME - CUBIC FEET X 10" 3

* STATIC EXCEPT AS NOTED

Figure 8 - Useful Lift*-to-Gross Lift Ratio versus Airship Volume
(Past Non-rigid and Semi-rigid Configurations)

pressure for doubling the design velocity) between the ZPG-3W
and the 1919B nonrigid tends to prevent improvement recognition.

3. The semi-rigid airships do not appear significantly differ-
ent in terms of the parameter plotted than the non-rigids
for a similar period in time.

4. The benefit of dynamic lift has been included in Figure 8
with respect to the ZPG-3 W and the ZPW-1 design study
configuration.

Figure 9 represents a comparison between past rigids, non-rigids, and
semi-rigids. The parameter used for the comparison is empty weight-to-
maximum gas volume ratio. The following comments are offered relative
to Figure 9:

0.05

0.04

10.03

i 0. 02

* 0.01

SEMI-RIGIDS

5. A

o —

, MOST RECENT RIGIDS (GERMAN & AMERICAN)

Jb B

EFFECT OF HEAVY TAKE-OFF

□

LEGEND:

O HYDROGEN
□ HELIUM

1 .

2 .

6 .

I — 8.

9 .

10 .

11 .

12 .

MOST EFFICIENT GERMAN MILITARY NON-RIGID (1917)

MOST EFFICIENT GERMAN MILITARY RIGID (1917)

MOST EFFICIENT GERMAN MILITARY SEMI-RIGID (1914)

ITALIAN SEMI-RIGIDS (4. A -ROMA AND 4.B NORGE, 1919 & 1923 RESPECTIVELY)

MOST RECENT GERMAN RIGIDS (5. A -GRAF ZEPPELIN AND 5.B HINDENBURG, 1928 & 1936 RESPECTIVELY
MOST RECENT AMERICAN RIGIDS (AKRON & MACON, 1931 AND 1933 RESPECTIVELY
MOST RECENT AMERICAN NON-RIGID (ZPG-3W, 1959)

GOODYEAR ZWG-1 NON-RIGID DESIGN STUDY

NON-RIGID K-SHIPS (1931-1945)

NON-RIGID G-SHIPS (1935) NOTES : 1.0 ft - 3.048 x 1 0'"

EARLY AMERICAN NON-RIGIDS (C TYPE 1918)
AMERICAN SEMI-RIGID (RS-1, 1925)

1 .0 Ibm = 4.536

10 -

rn,

1 kg

AIRSHIP MAXIMUM GAS VOLUME - CUBIC FT X 10

-6

Figure 9 - Comparison of Past Rigid, Non-rigid, and
Semi-rigid Airship Configurations

-40

1 .

Semi-rigids and non-rigids for a comparable period in time
(1916 to 19^5) do not appear to differ significantly in terms
of efficiency*, based on comparing data points 3, 4. A, 4.B,

11, and 12. In general, the design criteria, velocity, and mate-
rials were comparable in these designs and the sizes were
similar .

Z. The most recent rigids (data points 5. A, 5.B, and 6) have

relatively the same efficiency. All these configurations have
essentially the same design velocity and were of similar sizes.
The Akron, Macon, and Hindenburg used a more severe hull
strength criteria than the Graf Zeppelin. However, this was
offset by the Akron, Macon, and Hindenburg using improved
materials and the Hindenburg using an improved powerplant.

3. The ability of the non-rigid designs to perform heavy takeoffs
has been translated to an increase in efficiency; this has been
done by converting the dynamic lift into an effective increase
in gas volume using a lift value for helium of 0.993 kg/cu m
(0.06Z lb/cu ft). Volume II assesses the "real gain 11 in
efficiency resulting from heavy takeoffs.**

4. An increase in efficiency in the rigid design over certain
size ranges also can be realized by heavy takeoff as discussed
in Volume II.

5. The rigids and non-rigids of data points 5. A, 5.B, 6, 9,
and 10 from a comparable period in time (1928 to 1936)
indicate that the rigid configuration is historically some-
what between 12 and 25 percent more efficient than

Meaningful comparisons cannot be made over large periods in time general-
ly due to changes in strength criteria based on experience and wind tunnel
testing, technological improvements, and general trend to higher-speed
designs as time passed.

** #

This is accomplished by defining the relative gain in useful lift versus the
relative increase in empty weight due to increased landing gear weight.

- 41 -

the non-rigid.* Again, the reader must refer to Volume II
to compare the two configurations precisely.

6. A comparison between the ZPG-3W and the rigid airships
of the 1930 era is probably meaningless.

Figure 10 shows the effect that altitude has on useful lift. It can be seen
from Figure 10 why airships have historically been considered relatively low-
altitude vehicles. It is reasonable to suggest on the basis of the plot that, as a
rule, commercial operations with a modern airship vehicle (MAV) should be
limited to about 15Z4 m (5000 ft) above sea level to maximize productivity.
Inherent in that statement is the general conclusion that commercial operations
would not be suited to routes passing over mountainous terrain.

Use of the airship in military applications requiring high-altitude capability
is not nearly such a significant concern. The “penalty 11 paid to attain an opera-
tional capability of 6096 m (20, 000 ft) can quickly be offset in a high-priority
military need situation when it is realized the airship may be the only viable
approach for meeting the need.

Figure 10 - Altitude versus Useful Lift

This conclusion does not suggest that rigids are categorically preferable over
non-rigids since such a determination involves many factors. In addition, as
shown in Volume II, the efficiency gain indicated in the rigids is principally
due to their larger size.

- 42 -

Figure 11 shows the relationship between structural weight and volume of
past rigid airships. The data of the figure is for airships that used different
aerodynamic loading criteria, used different load factors and factors of safety,
considered military versus commercial criteria in their design, exhibited dif-
ferent maximum speeds, and used different component material strength-to-
weight ratios.

Thus, while the data have been interpreted linearly to facilitate an ap-
praisal of the data trend, the relationship between wieght and volume is not
necessarily linear for a given set of the above considerations. The parame-
tric analysis subsection of this report illustrates the actual trend that exists
between weight and volume for given sets of variables.

Figure 12 presents one figure of merit (FOM) of interest and shows pay-
load ton-miles per hour as a function of gross weight for various notable
rigid airships of the past. The British rigid data have not been plotted since
they do not fit the trends shown because of the structured rather excessive
weight. Payload is defined as useful load minus fuel load required to traverse

240
220
200

180
160
° 140

£ 120
z
=3

° 100
I

80
z
o

3 60
40
20
0

Figure 11 - Rigid Structural Weight versus Airship Air Volume

- 43 -

TOTAL STRUCTURE WEIGHT

Note: 1.0 ton = 9.072 x 10 2 kg,

1 . 0 STATUTE MILE = 1.609 x 1 0 3
1.0 1 bm = 4.536 x 10"^ kg

□ <J

z •— <
>— cc
u: • —

STATUTE NILES

AIRSHIP GROSS WEIGHT X 10' J LB

Figure 12 - Payload Ton-Miles per Hour versus Gross Weight (Rigids)

the range indicated at a velocity of 5 0 knots in a zero headwind condition. The
curves provide a base so productivity can be compared with past rigids and
those emerging from the parametric study. The results cannot be used to
compare data available on other forms of transportation unless similar ground
rules are adopted to define the relation between useful lift, payload, and fuel
load. Fifty knots was not necessarily the optimal speed in terms of the FOM
plotted but was a velocity at which data were available for all configurations.
There is a variety of design criteria represented; accordingly, the linearized
interpretations are not necessarily representative.

Figure 13 presents the FOM of payload ton-miles/(hours ) (empty weight)
as a function of gross weight for past rigids. The definitions in Figure 12
also apply to Figure 13, with generally the same qualifications applying. The
parametric data are compared with these data in the parametric study.

The ZPG-3W non-rigid airship data point is included so that the parame-
tric results of Volume II can be compared. Any specific comparisons

- 44 -

Note:

1 .0 ton - 9. 072 x }0 2 kg,

1.0 STATUTE MILE - 1.609 * 1 0 3 m ,
1.0 lbfn » 4.536 x 1 0- 1 kg

Figure 13 - Payload Ton-Mile s/(Hours )(Empty Weight)
versus Gross Weight (Rigids)

between the ZPG-3W and the remainder of the data of Figures 12 and 13 are
for the most part meaningless due to differing specifications to which the air-
ships were built.

HISTORICAL MARKETS, MISSION COSTS, AND
OPERATING PROCEDURES

General

The historical missions and markets have been broadly grouped as com-
merical and military. The following military and commercial operations are
discussed in this subsection:

1. German military missions during World War I (rigid air-
ship operation)

2. Seasonal pleasure flying in Germany between 1910 and
1914 (rigid airship operation)

- 45 -

3. Scheduled commercial service between Friedrichshafen,

Germany, and Berlin during 1919 (rigid airship operation)

4. Scheduled seasonal service between Friedrichshafen and
South America between 1932 and 1937 (rigid airship oper-
ation)

5. Scheduled seasonal service between Friedrichshafen and
Lakehurst, N. J. , between 1936 and 1937 (rigid airship
ope ration )

6. American military missions since 1916 (rigid and non-
rigid airship operation)

Operations and Economics
German Military Activities

At the outset of World War I, the German military had a fleet of approxi-
mately 12 Parseval and Siemens -Schuret non-rigid airships. These airships
had little practical use during the war because of their limited size and speed.
The commercial rigid airships of the Zeppelin Delag fleet were immediately
pressed into service; thus, commercial services were suspended.

Zeppelin-type rigids totaled nine at the outset of hostilities. Ultimately,

88 airships were built by the Zeppelin Company for the German war effort.

The Schutte - Lanz Company provided an additional 18 rigids. These airships
were ultimately abandoned, however, in favor of the Zeppelin type because
moisture caused the wooden structural members of the Schutte-Lanz airships
to deteriorate .

Bombing by airship started in earnest during the siege of Antwerp, Bel-
gium, with bombs improvised from artillery shells. The Zeppelins were
employed extensively on the Russian front until that front collapsed. Raids
on London started in 1915 and grew in intensity through 1916.

In some cases, fleets of as many as 16 airships were used. Table 14
summarizes pertinent characteristics of selected bombing missions. Later

- 46 -

TABLE 14 - SELECTED WORLD WAR I GERMAN BOMBING RAIDS

raids were carried out at altitudes in excess of 6400. 8 m (21, 000 ft) and bomb
loads were in excess of 5443.2 kg (12, 000 lb). The bombing raids became
reasonably effective, with many large munition factories disabled for extended
periods (Reference 14). The raids began to decrease in 1917 when the alti-
tude capability and incendiary ammunition of the airplanes improved.

After 284 raids, of which 188 were considered successful under Army
operation, the Zeppelins were transferred to naval service in the North Sea.
These airships played an important scouting role in the famous battle of Jut-
land, the only large-scale naval battle of World War I. Reportedly, without
the Zeppelins in this battle, the German fleet would have been eliminated.

The Zeppelins were used in a wide variety of ways by the Germany Navy.
Forty Zeppelins in the latter stages of the war broke up extensive mine fields,
stopped enemy merchant ships at sea, and bombed out enemy locks and dry-
docks .

During World War I, German Army and Navy airships flew approximately
26 000 hours , or nearly 2.315 X 10^ m (1,250,000 m), during approximately
5000 flights. About 51 airships were lost (References 15 and 16):

1. 17 downed by incendiary projectiles from artillery or
airplanes

2. 19 heavily damaged by artillary

3. 7 stranded in enemy territory

4. 8 destroyed in hangars by enemy action

At the end of the war, Germany resumed commercial passenger and
freight services with the airship, a service abandoned in 1914 so that all ef-
forts could be focused on providing airships to the military.

German Commercial Activities

Between 1910 and 1937, German Zeppelins were used for four different
sustained commercial operations.

- 48 -

TABLE 15 - LUFTSCHIFFBAU ZEPPELIN COMMERCIAL SERVICE (1910 TO 1937)

Data from transmittals from officers of Luftschiffbau Zeppelin to officers of Goodyear Zeppelin

TABLE 15 - (CONTINUED)

rejected maximum utilization rate - (365)

Seasonal Pleasure - The initial service operated by the Deutsche
Luftschiffahrts-Aktien-Gesellschaft {Delag), which was a subsidiary of the
Luftschiffbau Zeppelin (L-Z) Company, operated sightseeing and intercity
trips during 1910. Available data from the 1910 service is given in Table 15,
along with data pertinent to the entire German commercial service.

Figure 14 shows the utilization rate for the entire L-Z commercial his-
tory ( 1 9 1 0 to 1937). The airship in the L-Z service was seasonal and within
a season may have been periodic due to weather, especially from 1910 to
1914. If a modern commercial airship would not be subject to any significant
schedule alteration as a result of seasonal effects (if it were, it never would

Figure 14 - Utilization Rate as a Function of Stage Length for German

Commercial Service (1910 to 1937)

- 51 -

exist other than as a novelty), the demonstrated utilization can be modified
by factoring out seasonal and periodic interruptions of the past rigids; this
has been done in the cure labeled "projected maximum." The projected max-
imum utilization rate in hours per day is calculated as follows:

. , . / number of actual hours flown in year \

' ^number of days actually flown per year)

The value of this parameter is included in Table 15 for each airship of the
commercial L-Z service.

The ratio of the average block velocity-to-airship maximum velocity ratio,
plotted in Figure 15, also can be obtained from Table 15. This curve accounts
for the effects of head wind, tail wind, weather avoidance maneuvers, and
holding pattern for better landing conditions. The same ratio also has been
presented for modern-day commercial passenger jets and passenger heli-
copters .

1910-1914 SERV
GRAF

(•/ ZEPPELIN . J

\ (1930) Xcr 0

ICE

—
^ GRAF

\v^EP

PELIN 193-

r GRAF ZEPP
\ (1935)

TIN HIND
BURG
193,

EN-

- —

3 \ /

^ LZ-120

- MODER

N DAY PASS

-GRAF ZEPPELIN
ENGER JET (BASED ON H

OP LENGTH)
AVIATION W

- REFERE
EEK, 3-31-

NCE

1975

- V- MODEf
REFEf

3N DAY PASS
3ENCE AVIAT

1 l

ENGER HELICOPTER
ION WEEK MARCH 31 , 1

975

. . - . .. _j

NOTES

lata from
.0 STATU'

Table 15
re MILE =

1.609 x

10 3 m
1

DATA

FROM TABLE

STAGE LENGTH -STATUTE MILES X 10

-2

Figure 15 - Average Block Velocity Maximum Velocity Ratio

52 -

Similar sightseeing and intercity flights were conducted in 1911 with LZ -8
and LZ - 1 0 airships. The LZ-11, LZ-13, and LZ-17 were operated until the
outbreak of World War I, at which time the Delag ships were placed into mili-
tary service. Reference 8 reports that the total operating costs between ZZ
June 1910 and 31 July 1914 for the Delag operations were 4, Z60 ,000 reich
marks ($1, 700, 000 at an exchange rate of RM 1. 00 = $0.40); this reportedly
covered 47. 7 percent of the expenditure, with the balance apparently more
than covered by the German government. In return, the naval and other mili-
tary crews were trained during the commercial flights, and the airships were
required to meet certain limited military requirements.

Scheduled Commercial Service (Germany) - The commercial service was
resumed after the war with the Bodensee (LZ-1Z0), which flew between Fried-
richshafen and Berlin from Z4 August 1919 to 1 December 1919, with an inter-
mediate stop at Munich during part of the service. The service reportedly
operated at a los s despite a load factor of 100 percent on essentially all flights. *
The service was extremely popular as evidenced by the load factor; according-
ly, L-Z planned to introduce additional ships with flights beyond the German
borders. The Bodensee was lengthened in December 1919 so that the passen-
ger load could be increased from ZZ to 3 0; undoubtedly, this was undertaken
to resolve the reported loss situation. The Nordstern (LZ-1Z1) was build be-
tween October and December of 1919 and had characteristics essentially iden-
tical to the lengthened Bodensee. With these two ships carrying 30 passengers
each, it was intended to open an airship line in the spring of 19Z0 between
Switzerland and Stockholm by way of Berlin and to Italy and Spain. The Inter -
Allied command forbade further commercial operations, and the Bodensee was
turned over to Italy and the Nordstern to France.

Scheduled Commercial Service (South America) - Commercial operations
were resumed by L-Z in 19Z8 with the Graf Zeppelin. Table 16 summarizes
readily available data on the Graf Zeppelin. Operations with the Graf were
suspended shortly after the loss of the Hindenburg on 6 May 1937 since helium

- _ 1
The Bodensee (approximately 198, Z40 cu m (700, 000 cu ft) was the largest
airship that the Inter-Allied Command would permit Germany to build.

This factor, coupled with the severe inflation of that time, no doubt con-
tributed to and was possibly responsible for the reported loss.

- 53 -

TABLE 16 - DATA RELATIVE TO GRAF ZEPPELIN TRANSOCEANIC
FLIGHTS AND PASSENGER LOAD FACTORS

I. TRANSOCEANIC CROSSING HISTORY

Year

So .
Pass .

Atlantic

Mail

No. Atlantic

Pacific

Total

1928-9

1930

1931

1932

1933

1934

1935

* 6

1936

1937

TOTAL

128

144

♦These 6 crossings represent regular scheduled mail crossings from
Pernambuco to Africa and return without landing in Africa. The
mail was dropped by parachute and taken aboard with a line. Three
such round trips were made, yielding 6 crossings. Naturally no
passengers were carried.

SOUTH

AMERICAN SERVICE

LOAD FACTORS (1932-

-1935)

Year

Crossings

Passengers

Pass/Flight

% Capacity

1932

185

10.3

51.5

1933

215

12.6

63.0

*212

12.5

62.5

1934

429

17.9

89.5

*401

16.7

83.5

1935

572

17.9

89.5

*568

17.7

89.0

♦On a few flights during 1933, 1934, and 1935 all passenger accommo-
dations were sold out and additional passengers were accomodated
in the keel of the ship. The figures designated with ♦ give the
number of passengers after deducting the number of passengers carried
in the keel. In all cases 100% capacity has been taken as 20.

Three round trips to South America were made in 1931 before estab-
lishing the service which was first scheduled in 1932.

In 1935, several mail flights were also made across the So. Atlantic,
but as these flights were purely for mail carrying and no passengers
were carried, they have not been entered here.

A crossing may be designated as a transoceanic flight, either Fried-
richenafen to Pernambuco, Seville to Pernambuco, or the reverse.

was unavailable to Germany and the Hindenburg experience had made commer-
cial airship operation without it difficult to promote. The LZ-130 (Graf Zep-
pelin II), which first flew on 14 September 1938, was intended to be a strictly
commercial ship, but was never used in that capacity because an agreement
for the United States to provide helium could not be reached.

Among its accomplishments, the Graf Zeppelin traveled around the world
in an elapsed time of 20 days, 4 hours, and 14 minutes. It covered 3.419 X 10 m
(21, 249 mi) in a flying time of 300 hours and 20 minutes, an average of nearly
31. 74 m/s (71 mph ) . The four nonstop stage s of the trip were as follows:

1. August 15 to 19, 1929 - Friedrichshafen to Tokyo, nonstop,

1.028 X 10 m(6386 mi) in 101 hours and 49 minutes, over

Berlin, Stettin, Danzig, Estonia, Wologda (Russia), Yakutsk,
and Siberia. A crew of 40 plus 20 passengers.

2. August 23 to August 26, 1929 - after refueling and gasing,

Tokyo to Los Angeles, nonstop, 9.651 X 10 m (5998 mi)

in 79 hours and 3 minutes. A crew of 41 plus 18 passengers.

3. August 27 to August 29, 1929 - Los Angeles to Lakehurst,

nonstop, 4.821 X 10^ m (2996 mi) in 5 1 hours and 57 minutes,
via El Paso, Kansas City, Chicago, Detroit, and New York.

A crew of 34 plus 16 passengers.

4. September 1 to 4, 1929 - Lakehurst to Friedrichshafen,
last nonstop stage, 8.475 X 10^ m (5267 mi) in 67 hours
and 31 minutes, via Azores, Santander, and Bordeaux. A
crew of 40 plus 22 passengers.

The engine was refueled at Tokyo, Los Angeles, and Lakehurst. Only
plugs and several valves were changed on the entire trip. Passengers included
noted men and women and journalists from various countries flying one or
more or all stages. U. S. naval officers made the trip from Lakehurst.

The transoceanic crossing of the Graf Zeppelin for its entire period of
service along with the load factors attained on the South Atlantic service from
1928 through 1935 are summarized in Table 16.

The fare schedule for the 1936 season is present in Figure 16. Reference
8 reports that the 1932 service required a total expenditure of $19, 500 per

- 55 -

NORTH ATLANTIC SERVICE

Fronkfurt a /Main, Germany, to Lakehurst, N. J.
Laktkurtf, N. J., to Frankfurt a/Main, Germany.

For the season of 1936 ten round-trips of the L. Z. 129 are
scheduled between Frankfurt a/Main and Lakehurst, N. J.
beginning in May and lasting through to the middle of October.

Duration of the westbound voyage will be about three days and
for the eastbound voyage two and one-half days. See separate
sailing schedule for tentative dates.

RATES

(Subject to Change) OncWay

LAKEHURST— FRANKFURT OR FRANKFU RT— LAKEHURST * 40 o*

(2 IN A ROOM BASIS)

SOLE OCCUPANCY. DOUBLE ROOM 680

The rates to and from Seville, if a landtnq is made there, will be $40 less in either direction.
*The rate for the first voyage from Frankfurt to Lakehurst will be $100 additional.

Round T rip
$ 720

EUROPE— SOUTH

AMERICA SERVICE

This service has been in operation durinq the past four years

to Pernambuco is three days,

to Rio de Janeiro

4 days. Regular

and is in operation again this year by the GRAF ZEPPELIN,
with fortnightly departures in each direction. The time Frankfurt

fortnightly service from Apri

1st to December

RATES

(Subject to Change)

Two in Room

Room

per Berth

Alone

FRANKFURT— PERNAMBUCO

R.M. 1400

R.M. 2100

FRANKFURT— RIO DE JANEIRO

1500

2200

FRANKFURT— SEVILLE

400

SEVILLE— PERNAMBUCO

1300

2000

SEVILLE— RIO DE JANEIRO

1400

2100

Figure 16 - Fare Schedule for Graf Zeppelin
and Hindenburg (1936$)

trip (1932$), which appears reasonable on the basis of the Hindenburg's 1936 per-
trip expenses. Using the 1936 fare schedule (which does not appear significantly
different from the 1932 rates) and the load factor information from Table 16,

-56 -

the passenger revenue (in 1932$) per trip in 1932 averaged $4820 (all
passages round trip, Seville to Pernambuco and return, double occupancy).

The maximum average revenue (in 1932$) would have been $9064 (all one-
way passages, Frankfurt to Rio, single occupancy). Reference 8 reports
the mail revenue (in 1932$) at $1 1, 330 per trip for 1932. Freight revenue
was small as was the amount of freight carried per trip. From this, then,
the minimum average revenue (in 1932$) per trip was $16, 120 and the maxi-
mum average revenue (in 1932$) was $20, 394. This would indicate that the
first year’s expenses were probably not covered by mail and passenger revenue.

Scheduled Commercial Service (North Atlantic) - The Hindenburg was used
on the North Atlantic route due to the fact that its cruise speed was higher than
the Graf Zepplin. Operating costs for the North Atlantic flights of the Hinden-
burg for 1936 are determined below from the performance data of Tables 17 and
18. The operating costs of the Hindenburg during 1936 over the North Atlantic
route are given below:

1. Total annual expense (1936$)

Twelve and one -half percent
amortization of ship ($2, 300, 000)

0287 , 500

Twenty percent amortization of
five engines (four on ship, one

0 60, 000

spare )

Overhaul, alterations, new parts,
maintenance, and repairs (includ-
ing amortization of tools and

equipment )

0120 , 000

Reich mark = $0.40 (1932).

** i

The extent of a subsidy, if any, is not known.

Data contained in this analysis transmitted in personnel correspondence
of officers of Luftschiffbau Zeppelin to officers of Goodyear Zeppelin.

- 57 -

Insurance

All risk on ship (five
percent)

Crew accident

Third-party liability

Engine breakdown

Crew baggage

$130, 000
$ 11,600
$ 2, 000
$ 5,600

$ 250

Crew's wages (three flight watches
and reserves )

f. Administrative, engineering, and
selling overhead applicable to
the airship

Total fixed charges (1936$)

$149, 450

$ 110 , 000

$ 45, 000
$771, 950

TABLE 17 - SUMMARY OF HINDENBURG'S 1936 NORTH ATLANTIC
SERVICE (WESTWARD CROSSINGS) *

Flight

No.

Date of
Departure

Flight

Time

Distance
Nau. Miles

Passengers

Crew

Mail

Freight

Fuel Oil
Kg

Lub. Oil
Kg

May 6

61:40

3880

1059

134

50,350

4,000

May 16

78:50

3920

135

54,160

3,400

June 19

61:20

3692

156

50,600

3,015

June 30

52:49

3667

146

178

55,280

3,200

July 10

63:37

3679

123

105

54,000

3,582

Aug. 5

75:26

4372

195

385

55,500

2,659

Aug . 1 5

71:00

4132

170

165

52,100

3,100

Sept. 17